|Our problems are due to human
DNA, not the environment
What is causing problems in the world? What is preventing us
from improving the world? It is the minds
of the people that we live with. If you can accept the possibility that
our behavior is due to the physical structure of our brain rather
than the environment, and that each of us has a slightly different brain,
then you are led to the conclusion that people are not equally responsible
for the world's problems. The people with the inferior genetic characteristics
are causing more trouble.
This in turn leads you to the conclusion that the world will improve
by removing the worst behaved people and not letting them reproduce.
The people remaining will not be flawless, so we will continue to have
problems, but by continuously removing the worst behaved people, society
will slowly improve, and the human race will slowly evolve into a more
advanced species. In this section I will provide you with more information
about this issue.
In July 2013, Nova broadcast a documentary
about dogs, and like many other documentaries, it provided two "surprises":
1) that the behavior of a dog seems to be due to its genetics more than
the environment, and 2) the mind of a dog has some surprising similarities
to that of humans.
The documentary described an experiment that some Russian scientists
started about 50 years ago in which they captured some wild foxes, all of which
were aggressive towards humans. Then they passed judgment on which of the
foxes were the least aggressive, and they let those foxes breed with one
another. They also took the foxes that were the most aggressive and let
them breed with one another. After many generations they notice the "surprising"
result that the foxes that were selected for nonviolence became increasingly
less violent with every generation, and eventually became almost as tame
and friendly to humans as pet dogs, whereas the foxes that were being selected
for violence became increasingly violent, eventually becoming what could
be described as monsters.
Who among us would consider this documentary to be "surprising"? Farmers
have been breeding tomatoes, peaches, and apples for centuries. Also, for
thousands of years, long before anybody knew what DNA was, many people
noticed that children resembled their parents. This information is only
"new" and "surprising" to those who are resisting it.
A certain percentage of the human population is capable of understanding
that children are inheriting characteristics from their parents, but an
amazing percentage of the human population is too stupid to understand
this concept, and/or too emotionally defective to face it.
The people who have the intelligence to understand genetics but refuse
to face the issue are disregarding reality and creating a fantasy
world for themselves. I would describe what these people are doing as "mental
masturbation". They are ignoring whatever their emotions are upset by,
and creating a fantasy that their emotions are titillated by. It is a similar
mental process as a man who is masturbating while titillating himself with
fantasies of making love to Queen Elizabeth or Lady Gaga. When men do that,
they are disregarding reality and creating a fantasy that they find emotionally
titillating. I doubt if we are causing trouble for ourselves when we fantasize
about Angela Merkel as we masturbate, but we are hurting ourselves when
we fantasize about scientific facts.
Incidentally, I doubt if the issue of who a man fantasizes about
is meaningless. For example, I wonder if the men who like women with masculine
features, such as Ann Coulter, are somewhat homosexual. Some people wonder
if homosexual men have a fascination
with Barbra Streisand. Imagine a database that listed all of the people
that each of us fantasize about. Nobody yet knows how to interpret that
type of information, but it would certainly help us understand our mind.
Should I tell you who I am attracted to?
Getting back to the issue of genetics, people have a tendency to associate
with, get married to, and reproduce with people who are similar to them.
As a result, the people who oppose genetics are most likely to breed with
a person who also opposes genetics, whereas the people who believe in genetics
are more likely to breed with other people who believe in genetics.
The human race is evolving right now, and if we don't do something to
control it, we are going to end up with some noticeably different races.
The religious fanatics, for example, will create a race that is even less
able to face reality. The people who enjoy alcohol and drugs will create
a race that has an even stronger attraction to them. The idiots and mentally
ill people will create a race that is so stupid and mentally ill that they
cannot handle any of the complicated jobs of the future, and they depend
entirely upon welfare, donations, churches, and inheritances.
That Nova documentary about dogs also pointed out that experiments show
that dogs are capable of understanding what a human means when we point
at an object. They tried teaching some chimpanzees the concept of pointing,
but even with a lot of training, the chimpanzees could not understand the
concept as well as a dog. The "surprising" conclusion was that this mental
talent is due to the physical structure of the dogs brain, which in turn
means that the talent is inherited, and that an animal cannot pick up this
type of mental talent from its environment. These experiments provided
more proof that the mental talents and limitations of an animal are due
to its genetic qualities rather than its environment.
The Nova documentary came to the "surprising" conclusion that a dog's
mental talents are inherited, and that some of those talents are similar
to those of humans. Who is surprised to discover that humans and animals
share the same physical and mental qualities? Our bodies and brains are
just variations of one genetic blueprint.
Furthermore, animals that have similar environments or lifestyles will
be more similar to one another than animals that are radically different.
For example, all carnivores will have many similar mental and physical
qualities, and all birds will have some similar mental and physical qualities.
In regards to a dog's ability to understand pointing, this is to be
expected among all carnivores that hunt silently in packs. How is it possible
for a group of stupid animals to hunt together in silence? As wolves wander
around, each of them is looking for prey, but when they find a potential
victim, they cannot bark to the others, or send a text message to one another.
They have to silently sneak up on that animal. The only way the other animals
will join in on the hunt is if they are occasionally looking around at
what one another is doing. They must be constantly aware of where the other
wolves are, and what the other wolves are doing. They must have the initiative
to look around them and keep track of what the others are doing. They must
also be able to recognize the posture and body language of one of their
species so that they can determine when one of them has observed a potential
victim, and they must also be able to determine which direction the animal
is looking at, and whether he is looking at something close or far away.
A wolf's brain must do some complicated analyses. A wolf needs the ability
to recognize the shape of another wolf, identify the pointed face on that
shape, and look along an imaginary 3-D line from the center of its head
until it figures out what that other wolf is looking at. Any animal species
that develops the ability to hunt silently in packs will have an easier
chance of learning what a human is focusing his attention on when we look
at something or point at something. Since humans don't have a long, pointed
face, it may be easier for dogs to understand us when we use our arm to
point at an object, or if we put on a mask that has a long pointed nose.
Some people can accept the fact that genetics can explain animals and
plants, but they have trouble believing that it applies to humans. One
reason might be because many parents have produced children who do not
have a close resemblance to their parents or their siblings. Every tomato
plant resembles its parents extremely closely, and every poodle
is almost identical to its parents, but humans are creating a tremendous
variety of children. This can create the impression that we don't follow
the same laws as the animals and plants.
The reason animals are so similar to their parents is because most animals
live in a very small area, and they breed among a small group. Most animals
avoid or fight with their neighbors rather than mingle with them. By comparison,
at some point in human history, our ancestors began wandering around the
planet. The end result was that human tribes were scattered everywhere.
More importantly, they developed the ability to cooperate and form
The tribes would occasionally encounter their neighbors, but they would
not always fight or avoid them. They would sometimes mingle and interbreed.
Also, humans rape, kidnap, and take care of orphans.
Our behavioral characteristics have resulted in a lot different tribes
interbreeding with each other. Our gene pool is a chaotic mix of possibly
hundreds of races, and it's going to require quite a few generations of
controlled reproduction to eliminate some of our crude and undesirable
characteristics and create a more stable race.
When we design a new society, we must take genetics into account. We
need to design our social systems to fit an intelligent monkey rather than
Adam and Eve, and we must also restrict reproduction in order to increase
the chances of producing children who are healthy, honest, and responsible.
The people who refuse to face these issues should be considered as intellectually
and/or emotionally unfit to participate in a new society.
would you take to Mars?
It might help you to understand how to create a new society
if you consider the issues that are going to be faced by the organization,
One, that is currently planning on starting a colony on Mars. Regardless
of whether their plan is realistic, I think it would be useful for you
to consider the social problems that the Mars colony will face because
it can give you some ideas of what you might want to do with our future
here on the earth.
In a previous file I suggested that you imagine traveling to a planet
in another solar system to start a new world. Since that concept is unrealistic,
it might be more useful to imagine that the Mars One organization hires
to be their program director who is responsible for dealing with the people
and the social issues. Other people will handle the technical issues of
traveling to Mars and building the colony. Your job is to select people
the colony, and set up a social environment for them, including
the government, economy, and social activities.
One of the first issues I want you to consider is immigration.
Tens of thousands of people have already applied to be colonists on Mars,
but you cannot take all of them, so who will you choose? How will you make
First, consider an unrealistic and extreme situation. Imagine if you
ignored all of the people who were asking to go to Mars and you sent some
helicopters around the planet to randomly pick up people, regardless of
whether they were interested. Your Mars colony would then be a random
sample of the earth's population.
It should be obvious that if you did such a thing, you would not
create a successful colony. You would end up with a colony in which the
people had no desire to work together or cooperate. They would speak different
languages, practice different social customs, and follow conflicting religions.
Since people have a tendency to associate with people who are similar to
themselves, they would segregate into separate, independent, unfriendly
To add to the problems, the majority of people would continue to hold
grudges against one another. Some of the Africans would whine that their
ancestors were slaves, for example, and some of the Scottish people would
whine that their ancestors suffered from the English, and some of the Chinese
would whine about abuse that their ancestors suffered from Koreans. If
you were to transport these
Indonesian teenagers to Mars, they would continue having the same gang
fights that they have right now.
Putting a truly random sample of the human population on Mars would
create a miniature version of the earth. It would not provide
people with a more pleasant life. Every problem that we have here on the
Earth would be seen on Mars. The Mars colony would be dominated by apathetic,
selfish sheeple who don't care about anything except titillating their
emotions, and those sheeple would allow crime networks and teenage gangs
to run rampant on Mars.
Human life has advanced during the past few thousand
years because some of us wanted improvements.
Furthermore, there would be no possible way for you to convince
the people in your Mars colony to cooperate with one another, follow the
same language, and keep their religions to themselves. The people on Mars
would be just as "patriotic" as they are here on the earth. They would
attack you for criticizing their particular religion, language, government,
holidays, and clothing. They would want to follow their ancestors. They
would want their lives to remain exactly as they are right now. They would
refuse to abandon their culture and experiment with changes.
After a few decades of living on Mars, some groups of people would become
wealthier, and they would likely use some of the poor people as a cheap
source of factory workers, housekeepers, maids, and prostitutes.
Our mind remains the same
as we change locations
If we were to transport some fish, dogs, snakes, birds, and
tomato plants from the Earth to Mars, we would find that all of the creatures
continue to behave in the exact same
manner as they do on Earth. Although a lot of environmental factors can
affect the behavior of an animal or plant, the physical location
of a creature doesn't have any significant effect on its mind or body.
If there was a "universal GPS" system for the entire universe, we would
find that each of us has a unique XYZ location in the universe. We would
also find that our XYZ coordinates are changing continuously because
the planet, solar system, and galaxy are moving. However, even though our
physical location in the universe is constantly changing, our mind and
body remain the same.
Transporting a human from the Earth to Mars is doing nothing but moving
him from one XYZ coordinate to another. Regardless of which coordinates
we send him to, he will continue to have the same personality, the same
intellectual abilities and limitations, the same allergies, the same sleep
disorders, the same bone structure, and the same memory. A person does
not become more honest, intelligent, talented, responsible, athletic, or
considerate simply by moving to a different XYZ coordinate.
This concept also applies to people who move around here on the earth.
If some criminals from Britain emigrate to America, they will not become
more honest simply by changing their XYZ coordinates. They will remain
the same people with the same mental characteristics. If they could not
properly pronounce the English language while they were in Britain, they
are not going to be able to properly pronounce English when they are in
America. If they had alcohol problems in Britain, they will have alcohol
problems in America.
If we were to study the criminals who moved from Britain to America,
we would find that some of them found an honest way to make a living in
America, and they never again committed a crime. This can create the impression
that moving to America can cause a criminal to become honest, but it's
just an illusion.
Nobody, other than truly psychotic people, want to be a criminal;
we want to impress other people. Therefore, if a criminal can find
a method to achieve his goals honestly, he will do so. Some of the criminals
who emigrated to America found an honest way to make a living because we
have so much more land and resources, but they remained the same people
with the same mental problems. Since their minds remained the same, when
economic conditions changed, or when they changed their desires for money
or fame, some of them reverted to committing crimes in order to achieve
If a man with an alcohol problem moves from one location to another,
he will continue to have the same mental problem that caused him to become
an alcoholic. If he moves to Saudi Arabia or Salt Lake City, where alcohol
is scarce, he may remain sober, but that would not be because his mind
has improved. It would be due to the scarcity of alcohol.
The significance of these concepts is that the people who travel to
Mars will take with them whatever mental abilities and limitations that
they have here on the earth. The passage through the Van Allen belts might
destroy some of their brain cells, but it will not transform them into
better people. In order for a colony on Mars to have more cooperation,
less crime, less corruption, and less drug problems than the cities here
on the earth, we must restrict the colony to people who have already
displayed signs of having
here on the earth.
An organization is a reflection of its members. The XYZ location of
the organization does not determine how the people behave or treat one
another. Humans are scattered all over the planet, but the behavior of
the people is very similar regardless of their location. The people who
believe that they will find a better life simply by moving to Mars are
victims of the "grass is greener on the other side of the fence" fantasy.
People who are firm believers in the "grass is greener" theory are displaying
an undesirable quality in this modern world, and it could have a disastrous
effect on the Mars colony. Imagine a colony in which everybody has a strong
attraction to the "grass is greener" theory. Whenever the colony experienced
a problem, the people may jump to the conclusion that they need to split
the colony into pieces, or move the colony, or start a new colony. They
may never actually deal with their problems because they may assume that
the solution is to move to the other side of the mountain.
In order to create a colony on Mars that truly provides humans with
a better life, we have to accomplish two tasks:
1) We have to be able to analyze people, pass judgment on their mental
qualities, and restrict immigration to the people who have shown evidence
that they have a more advanced mind than the people who dominate the planet
2) We must develop a better government system, legal system, school
system, and other social technology for that Mars colony.
It is important to note that if
we have the ability to accomplish those two tasks, then we don't need to
go to Mars in order to create a better life for ourselves. We could create
a new city right here on the earth. Furthermore, we can do this
right now. We don't have to wait for
more advanced rocket technology.
Creating a better life for ourselves doesn't require that we leave the
earth. We can create new cities right here on the earth, and right now,
but the only way a new city will provide a better life for its residents is
if we restrict immigration to people who are "better quality", and if we
develop better social systems. How do we determine who among us is "better
quality"? How do we develop better social systems? Nobody can truly answer
those questions. We have to be willing to experiment with our future.
We must control people
We want to believe that crime, divorce, loneliness, unwanted
children, corruption, blackmail, teenage gangs, suicide, and other problems
can be solved without affecting any of our lives, but that would be possible
only if those problems were the result of inanimate objects, the devil,
a lack of oil, or poverty. Unfortunately, our social problems are the result
of people's decisions; people's behavior; people's minds.
Therefore, the only way to eliminate these problems is to find a way to
people behave better. As I've described in other files, there are only
two methods available to us today: 1) eliminate the people who cannot behave
properly, and 2) find ways of helping people to become more productive
members of the organization.
In some of my other files I've mentioned possible ways of helping people
become better citizens, such as eliminating our free enterprise system
so that instead of encouraging people to exploit one another for profit,
we encourage people to look for ways to improve society.
In order to improve something, we must look critically
Creating a better society is not
going to be easy. It requires that we find the emotional strength to experiment
with our our lives and future. We must be willing to experiment
with our economic system, social affairs, holiday celebrations, school
system, and government. We have to figure out how to provide ourselves
with a social environment that reduces hatred, jealousy, envy, and loneliness,
and encourages beneficial competitions, cooperation, and stable relationships.
We need to experiment with our school system so that we can produce
children who have the skills necessary to get jobs, and the knowledge to
fit into society, and the social affairs necessary to meet other people
and form stable relationships. We also need to experiment with our meals
and recreational activities to help people maintain their health. The people
who oppose experimentation are inhibiting progress. They are not
Consider the social problems
of a Mars colony
Even though you may not want to live on Mars, I think that
it would be very useful for you to consider the social and economic problems
that they would face. For example, consider the issue of drugs,
such as alcohol, marijuana, Vicodin, date rape drugs, poppers, and steroids.
Will the people on Mars promote alcohol? Are they going to put people in
jail for selling or using marijuana, steroids, or other drugs? How will
people on Mars deal with neighbors that dislike one another and get into
fights, such as Rodriguez and Danaher? Will they have a trial to determine
who should be punished?
Will gambling or prostitution be legal? Will they have strip clubs?
Will the government of Mars have lotteries? Will they allow pets, and if
so, what will their policy be for unwanted pets that have been abandoned
by their owners and are roaming around in the colony? Their living conditions
will be cramped, so what will they do with dogs that bark incessantly?
Will they require the vocal cords be cut out of dogs?
A very significant issue on Mars is reproduction. A Mars colony
must be designed for a certain number of people, and they will have a limited
ability to produce food, water, and air. They must control their population
growth, but how are they going to do that? Will they limit each person
to a certain number of children? Will they allow lesbian couples to get
The people involved with the Mars One project posted a warning that
nobody yet knows whether it is safe to have children on Mars, so they write:
"Mars One will therefore strongly advise the settlement
habitants not to attempt to have children". How many men and women
are going to care that they "strongly advise" against having babies? The
management of the Mars One project is not providing a sensible policy for
this problem. No nation on Earth has been able to stop adults or teenagers
from having sex and getting pregnant. The Chinese government is struggling
to control their population growth, but many of their citizens are fighting
Will the people on Mars behave any better than the people on earth in
regards to reproduction? It all depends on who those people are.
If the people on Mars are typical humans, then there will occasionally
be unwanted teenage and adult pregnancies; there will be Catholics and
Mormons who fight the use of birth control; some families will want as
many as 21 children; and some women will take fertility pills in order
to produce sextuplets and become famous.
Women have intense cravings for babies, and men have cravings for sex.
We cannot expect people to disregard those cravings. We can't even stop
men from raping women here on the earth. Some fathers rape their
own daughters. How are we going to stop rape and pregnancy on Mars?
Some birds behave like humans
Incidentally, there are some documentaries that I think provide
some interesting and amusing insights into the behavior of men and women.
Specifically, there is a documentary about the Harpy
eagles in South America, and this
documentary about Falcons in North America. The relationships between
the male and female birds in those two species reminds me of the typical
With some animals, both the males and females take care of the babies
and hunt for food, but those two bird species behave more like humans.
After the female lays eggs, she spends almost all of her time protecting
her eggs. When the babies hatch, she spends her time protecting the babies
and feeding them. The male spends every day hunting for food. When he brings
food home, the female takes it, and then he has to find more food. He doesn't
get to relax, and he doesn't get any affection or thanks from the female.
He doesn't spend time with the children, either. Neither the children nor
the female have any interest in him. All they want are the mice, rabbits,
or whatever he catches. The male spends his entire life hunting for food,
and then giving it to the female. He is essentially a slave of the female,
and she is essentially a slave for her children.
It reminds me of some of the relationships that I've seen in which the
man spends his life bringing money, gifts, and other items to his wife,
but his wife doesn't have much of an interest in him. She is focused on
her children, and she regards her husband as a provider of food and financial
Another interesting aspect of these two bird species is that the female
enjoys "staying at home" with her children as long as the male provides
enough food. She shows no interest in becoming "liberated" from the "housework"
and joining the male in "working". However, if the male doesn't provide
enough food, she becomes upset. This reminds me of the way women, if they
are properly taken care of, are happy to be in a submissive role and take
care of the children, but if they are unhappy for some reason, such as
having an incompetent husband who wastes money on alcohol or gambling,
they become upset, liberated, or rebellious.
In the documentary about the Eagles, once the male was gone for many
days, and the female and her babies became very hungry. She became so upset
that she got out of the nest and wandered out along the tree branch and
began squawking. She was apparently yelling the bird equivalent of, "Where
are you? The children are hungry! You've been gone for a week! When are
you going to bring some food home? I should have listened to my mother
and chosen that other male!"
That female Eagle reminds me of the women who complain that their husbands
are not bringing home enough money, or that they need a larger house.
In the documentary of the falcon, there was a time when the male was
not bringing enough food home, perhaps because he was sometimes sitting
nearby on a rock and preening his feathers rather than hunting. The female
and her babies became so hungry at one point that she decided to leave
the nest and find food. If birds could talk, I suppose she would have
made angry, bitter remarks that resemble those from liberated women who
complain that they have to get a job to help their lazy husband support
The relationship between men and women is not much more advanced than
that between male and female Falcons or Eagles. When a human girl becomes
a teenager, she becomes very flirtatious, just like the female birds. From
her point of view, she is looking for a man who loves her, but from the
point of view of nature, she is putting herself on display and putting
up resistance to the boys to force them to prove that they have the physical
strength, stamina, and desire to become a successful father.
In a species in which the female raises the babies, the males do not
have a strong attraction to babies. The only way a female of that species
can successfully raise a family is if she can find a male who has such
a strong attraction to her that he will devote his entire life to providing
her with food and protection. Therefore, the females of those species must
put up resistance to the males in order to find one who has such an intense
craving for females that they will put a lot of effort and time into competing
for her. She is essentially looking for a male who will become her devoted
The feminists claim that men are abusive to women, and there are certainly
a lot of men who are indeed abusive to women, children, animals, and other
men. However, a man's emotions want him to serve a woman. This may be why
men do not think it is strange to serve a queen. Men are very arrogant
compared to women, but if we were truly sexist creatures who want to abuse
women, would we tolerate a queen?
If people would lose their paranoia about being observed, and if they
would stop being embarrassed about their qualities, then people could be
more honest about their fantasies, and that could help us understand our
emotions. If we could watch women's fantasies on television, I think we
would discover that virtually every young woman spends a lot of time fantasizing
about becoming the center of attention as men fight over her and beg her
for marriage. If we could watch the fantasies of men, I do not think
we would see many men fantasizing about women fighting over them, or begging
them for marriage. Women are titillated when a man gets on his hands and
knees and begs for marriage, but how many men would be titillated by a
woman who behaves like that?
It is important for us to understand our emotions because that knowledge
allows us to design our job conditions, social affairs, holiday celebrations,
schools, and other social technology, to fit our emotions, and it
allows us to know how to control our inappropriate emotions. It
also allows us to make decisions on what we want the human race to evolve
into. By selecting the people who show the qualities we want for the future
generations, the human race will become better adapted to this modern world.
Understanding our emotions can help both men and women form more stable,
pleasant relationships. This requires both men and women stop putting on
phony images of what they are and let scientists see exactly what they
think and feel, and what differences there are between us. For example,
I suspect that we will discover that women are naturally difficult to please
in order to put pressure on the men to work. The women in prehistoric times
were never satisfied with what their husbands did. They would compare their
life to that of other people, and they would demand more food, more furs,
a better house, and more tools.
We could describe the attitude of women as "constantly whining for more".
However, in prehistoric times, this would have put pressure on the men
to continue working. The men could not relax, and they could not spend
much time playing with children. The adult men were under pressure to work.
Women do not admire men who lounge around during the day. They admire the
men who work and give them gifts.
During prehistoric times, this quality of women was very useful, but
in our era, it is absurd. The women in the wealthy nations are putting
pressure on their husbands to provide them with ridiculously large houses
and absurd quantities of material items. With today's technology, we can
easily provide everybody with the basic necessities. There is no sense
in anybody whining for a bigger house, or for more material items. The
human race has to evolve from focusing on the collection of material items
to focusing on activities, life, people, and society.
The same concept applies to children; they also have a whiny attitude.
This is not a coincidence or a mistake. Genetic traits develop by accident,
but the qualities that persist through the generations are those that have
a benefit. If a trait has no benefit, it will either slowly change
through time in a haphazard manner, or it will vanish. Every trait that
persists through the generations is truly valuable to us.
The children of all animals could be described as "whiny", and this
is proof that it is a very valuable trait to all animals. It should be
obvious that this trait is intended to put pressure on the adults to take
care of the children. During prehistoric times, children needed to be whiny
to put pressure on their ignorant, monkey-like ancestors to take care of
them, but in our modern era, we don't need this. Children today are whining
for all sorts of toys, food items, and activities that they don't need,
or which are dangerous.
I suspect that future generations will eventually become tired of the
whining, and that they start breeding humans to be less whiny, eventually
creating children and adults who never whine about anything. If we could
live in that era, we would find that it is significantly more pleasant
to be a parent, and to be married.
If teenage girls can understand why they flirt with boys, and if they
can control their emotions, then they will stop putting boys into competition
for gifts and entertainment, and they will stop looking for a boy who behaves
like a devoted slave. The girls will realize that they need to focus on
which of the boys will be compatible with them in regards to living
together and spending leisure time together.
Likewise, the boys need to understand that their emotions cause them
to look for a pretty girl because in prehistoric times, the prettiest women
were those in the best health and the most talented. A prehistoric woman
who could not properly groom herself or make nice clothing would not be
able to take care of children. Today the boys have to look at more than
the physical beauty of a woman. They have to be concerned about what they
are going to do with a woman during their leisure time, and at night.
Also, boys need to realize that their craving to get on their hands
and knees and serve a woman is no longer appropriate. Raising children
is becoming increasingly easy, and if we switch to a society in which food
and housing is free, men won't have to spend their entire lives struggling
to bring food and gifts home to their wife. Women will not need men for
basic necessities or childcare. Women can ignore the issue of food and
housing when they select a man. Men and women will be able to form relationships
based upon compatibility rather than on sex or financial
The crude relationship between men and women was both satisfying and
stable during prehistoric times. The men spent the day looking for food
and taking care of their families, and the women spend the day taking care
of children and socializing. In the evening the men and women would have
enjoyed spending time together.
Prehistoric women would not have considered their children to be "whiny"
because the children cried only for basic necessities. The children did
not demand toys or video games. Furthermore, parents were never irritated
by retarded or sickly children because nature killed them. Raising children
in that era was easier in certain respects than it is today.
Don't underestimate the significance of the death of sickly and defective
children. It would have created a noticeably more pleasant society
of self-sufficient people. As with wild animals, the children who made
it to adulthood were those who were healthy and capable of taking care
of themselves. None of our prehistoric ancestors survived through inheritances,
crime, investments, nepotism, or donations. Some men were more talented
than others, but they all would have been able to take care of themselves
and their family. The only time the men had trouble finding food is when
the weather was bad, or when the human population was rising excessively.
With all of the men in good health and self-sufficient, none of the
women would have whined about their lazy, alcoholic, worthless husband.
The prehistoric women were also in better health and more self-sufficient,
as a group, compared to those of today. A prehistoric man would not have
been irritated when his wife whined for more food, furs, or tools because
he wanted those things, also. It would have inspired him do a better job.
His wife did not whine for diamond jewelry, mansions, or hundreds of pairs
of shoes. He would have considered his wife to be working for the same
goals that he was working for. He would have regarded his wife as a
team member, or a partner, who was working with him to raise
a family. He would have been proud to provide his wife with food
and material items, not bitter that he was wasting his life trying to please
a spoiled bitch with absurd quantities of worthless items.
Our prehistoric ancestors didn't have many leisure activities or other
issues to argue about. They had no conflicts over religion, money, gambling,
alcohol, sports, television, or politics. Also, most of them died before
they were 50 years old, so they didn't have the age-related problems that
are common today, such as frustrated old women who no longer have children
to take care of, or men who have lost interest in sex, or grandparents
who treat their adult children as babies.
Human emotions developed for that primitive era, not for our technically
advanced era. As I described in other documents, in order for marriages
to be stable in our modern world, we need to understand and control our
emotions so that we can make intelligent decisions about who to marry,
and how to treat our spouse. If we foolishly follow our crude emotions,
we will behave like primitive savages, and that will result in lots of
arguments and abuse.
Will people on Mars use the
Getting back to the Mars colony, will it operate on the same
type of free enterprise system that America is using today? For example,
are the people going to have to pay for their own spacesuits? When
a woman gets pregnant, she will need a maternity spacesuit, or she
will have to remain in protected areas until the pregnancy is over. Will
every woman be responsible for purchasing maternity spacesuits? What will
the women do with maternity suits when they no longer need them? Will the
colony provide thrift stores or garage sales for people to sell their unneeded
spacesuits? Will parents be responsible for purchasing spacesuits for their
children? What will parents do with suits that their children outgrow?
Will the government provide meals for free, or will everybody have
to buy their own kitchen, purchase their own food, and cook their own meals?
Will businesses, churches, and nonprofit groups be allowed to do telemarketing
or door-to-door sales? How are they going to regulate the neon signs, advertisements,
and billboards that businesses use to advertise themselves? Will they allow
businesses on Mars to use sexual titillation in advertisements?
Will the Mars colony allow people to have unlimited incomes? Will they
allow billionaires to have gigantic, luxurious mansions with dozens of
servants while the rest of the population lives in extremely cramped, simple
Their living areas will be cramped, and so they're not going to have
lots of wall space for pictures or decorations. How do they decide on the
style of art and architecture? Will the Mars colony be decorated in the
Andy Warhol style, the Pablo Picasso style, or the Ikea style?
The cramped conditions will also make it easier for men to "accidentally"
rub up against women (and men, if they are homosexual), and it will make it easier for men to fondle women
in crowded areas. What are the people on Mars going to do about those issues?
Water will be extremely scarce, so will the government provide and ration
the water, or will private businesses sell it? Will they have coin-operated
vending machines that sell bottled water? In some areas of America, when
a city was rationing water during a drought, some wealthy people deliberately
used excessive amounts of water and paid the fines that were imposed on
them. Will they allow wealthy people on Mars to waste water?
The Mars one project is attracting people from around the world, so
it is conceivable that the initial colony is dominated by Europeans rather
than Americans. If the colony is dominated by people from the Netherlands,
will they want to continue worshiping their King? Will they want statues
of him on Mars, and pictures of him on the walls of their communal areas?
Will the people from England complain that they want photos of Queen Elizabeth
on the walls?
Will the Mars colony use the same bank accounts and credit cards that
we use on the earth, or will they develop their own financial system and
require all of the colonists and tourists to switch over to their particular
style of money and credit cards? If they create their own credit card companies,
will they allow the companies to take a percentage of their transactions,
or will they demand that the credit card companies charge sensible fees?
Sewage treatment and recycling will be a critical activity on Mars.
Will the government handle these problems, or will free enterprise provide
the plumbing, sewage, and garbage services? People on the earth frequently
dump chemicals into the sewer, thereby interfering with sewage treatment,
and they often dump their trash wherever they please, and some people flush
trash down the toilet. What are the people on Mars going to do about such
Who is going to do the "dirty work" on Mars, such as picking up trash,
working on assembly lines, and providing childcare? Will they bring poor
people from the Earth to use as cheap labor?
What will happen if a woman gets pregnant on Mars but does not want
the child? Are they going to have abortions on Mars? Or will they have
orphanages for unwanted children? Or are they going to fight over the issue
and stage demonstrations, as they are doing here on the earth?
What will they do when a child is mentally or physically defective,
such as a Siamese twin or a midget? Will parents of defective children
be responsible for purchasing special spacesuits to fit their deformed
children and paying for whatever medical care their child needs? Or will
their government help parents deal with some or all of those expenses?
Are they going to design bathrooms and cafeterias that have wheelchair
access? Or will they kill their deformed children? Or will they ship the
deformed and unwanted children to the earth?
We have no idea what will happen to children who are raised on a planet
with a significantly lower level of gravity. Perhaps the children become
thinner and taller. If we create a Mars colony to fit the physical size
of people here on the earth, and if the children on Mars become significantly
taller, then the children will not be able to walk down the hallways, fit
into the beds, or sit properly in chairs or vehicles. Who is going to deal
with such problems? The government or free enterprise?
Will the Mars colony have their own, independent government, or will
they choose to be under the control of one of the earth governments? If
they create their own government, what agencies will they create? If they
create an FDA, will the residents of Mars be such passive, apathetic sheep
that they don't care if the FDA prohibits them from growing hemp for fiber
Are they going to bring lawyers to Mars to provide them with legal assistance
when they have divorces or disputes? Or will they leave the lawyers on
the earth and communicate through email whenever they need to purchase
legal advice? If they bring lawyers to Mars, are they going to provide
the lawyers with extremely high incomes, as we do in America?
It would be difficult to find an organization on the earth in which
there is no crime. Employees of a business will sometimes steal from the
business, or steal from other employees, or fondle one another, or put
video cameras in the toilet. What are the people on Mars going to do about
crime? Are they going to have jails or other type of punishments? Or will
they send the criminals to the earth?
Even if the Mars colony chooses to be under the control of one of the
earth governments, they are going to need some type of leadership for
themselves. How are they going to select their leadership? Are they going
to let every adult vote? Will they have any restrictions on who can be
a voter or who can be a candidate? Will they advocate a two-party political
system? Are they going to vote in secrecy? Will they use paper ballots
or electronic voting machines? Are they going to provide the people with
the right to demonstrate when they disapprove of their government? Or will
they experiment with a more sensible method for the people to discuss and
resolve their differences?
Are the people on Mars going to use the metric system or the Imperial
system? Will they use clocks that operate on a 12 hour cycle, 24 hour cycle,
or will they design a clock and calendar that fits Mars?
How are they going to deal with the issue of "libel"? If I was living
in the Mars colony and somebody complained that he wanted some of my information
to be censored, how would they deal with the complaint? What type of legal
system will they have?
What will the people on Mars do if somebody becomes obese? Will
they design special space suits for the obese people? Will they provide
special beds, vehicles, and furniture for them? If they suffer a temporary
shortage of food, will they make everybody suffer equally, or will they
tell the obese people to suffer the most since they can more easily survive
How are they going to deal with age-related problems? Conservatives
complain about government programs, such as Social Security and Medicare.
They want businesses and individuals to handle retirement and medical issues.
What will the people on Mars do?
When a colonist arrives on Mars, will he be on his own to find a job?
Will he have to visit one business and government agency after the next,
and fill out one job application after the next? Or will the government
take a more active role in training people and helping them to find jobs?
Will they provide different working conditions for women who are pregnant
or who have young children? Will they have different working conditions
for older people?
Conservatives also whine about public schools. Will the Mars colony
have public schools, private schools, or both? Will their schools mimic
those on the earth, or will they create their own school system? Will students
graduate from the Mars University with enormous credit card debt and virtually
no useful skills?
What subjects will they teach their children in school? Will they teach
them that Arabs attacked America on 9/11, and that the World Trade Center
towers fell down because of fire? Are they going to teach their children
that the Apollo astronauts landed on the moon six different times? Are
they going to teach their children that the Nazis put 6 million Jews into
gas chambers and ovens?
Will the people on Mars rent apartments, or purchase homes? Will they
have real estate agents that take a percentage of a home's purchase price?
Since the atmosphere of Mars is very thin, the Mars colony will be more
susceptible to meteors, so will each person be responsible for purchasing
"meteor insurance" from private insurance companies? Will each person also
be responsible for purchasing his own "cosmic ray medical insurance"? Or
will they provide some type of "Obamacare"?
Will everybody on Mars have a different and secretive salary? Will there
be unions, and if so, will they resolve disputes by staging walkouts? Will
the people on Mars allow the wealthy people to pass their wealth to their
children or ex-spouse, or will they have restrictions on inheritances or
"You have the freedom to
choose your own path!"
When our primitive ancestors wanted to wander to a new land,
or split into two tribes, they didn't make any plans about where they would
go, or what their social structure would be, or what their holiday celebrations
would be. They simply picked up their furs and tools, and started walking.
They had no idea where they were going. They didn't have to make plans
because no matter where they went, life would be exactly the same. All
they were doing was changing locations, not changing the manner
in which they live or trying to create a new society from a mixture of
different groups of people.
The people planning a Mars colony are behaving like primitive savages.They
think that they can pick up some tools and material items, and then wander
off to Mars without any plans on what they are going to do once they get
there. However, they are not simply moving to a different location on the
earth and continuing the life that they have right now. They are moving
to a radically different environment, and they are trying to create a new
society with people from around the world who follow different languages,
religions, and customs. They cannot behave like primitive savages. They
must become modern humans.
The people who are planning the mission to Mars are fully aware that
they need to deal with an enormous number of social issues, but
as of 11 July 2013, they have no intention of dealing with any of them.
"To a large extent, once they are on Mars the
inhabitants will be on their own when it comes to deciding how to organize
So, after the people arrive on Mars, they are free to figure
out by themselves how to create a government system, school system, retirement
system, economic system, holiday celebrations, abortion policy, etc. The
people signing up for the Mars mission might enjoy the concept of being
free to choose their own future, but people here on the earth do not have
the emotional or intellectual ability to choose their future, so why should
we assume that a group of people on Mars will be able to do it? If the
people in that colony are just a random sample of the people that we find
here on the earth, then the people on Mars will be constantly fighting
with each other over abortion, guns, religion, and every other issue.
In regards to religion, the Mars One project "encourages
religious freedom". That may create the impression that the project
managers are wonderful people who want to provide the colony with freedom,
but it is actually just an excuse to do nothing about the complex
and very serious issue of religion. The project managers are simply pushing
the problem of religion onto the people who travel to Mars. Those people
will then have to argue among themselves about what to do about religious
Are the people on Mars going to celebrate Christmas, Easter, or Hanukkah?
If they celebrate Christmas, will they decorate the city with Santa Claus,
baby Jesus, and reindeer? If they produce their own money, will it contain
such messages as, "In God we trust"? Will their schools encourage children
to pray to some god? Will they teach evolution or creationism? Will they
allow religious schools on Mars? Will they build churches on Mars and provide
homes and support for church officials, or will they consider churches
to be a waste of resources? Will they allow television evangelists to live
and operate on Mars?
When the leaders of society tell their people that they have "religious
freedom", the leaders are doing nothing.
It is equivalent to the American federal government officials announcing
that a particular problem is the responsibility of the state governments.
For the European readers of this article who don't understand that analogy,
it would be equivalent to your Queen claiming that a particular problem
is the responsibility of the King. This is a trick to push a problem onto
somebody else. It is not providing freedom, or a solution to a problem.
It should not be regarded as an intelligent policy.
Since everybody in the world today has grown up with religious freedom,
it may seem strange that I criticize this freedom as an excuse to do nothing,
so consider how this concept applies to other issues, such as marriage.
Imagine a government official who doesn't want to argue with people over
the issue of marriage, and so he announces that everybody in his nation
has "marital freedom". Imagine everybody being able to choose for themselves
what type of marriage they want, and all other issues related to marriage.
And let's go further, let's assume that this submissive leader doesn't
want to argue with people who are trying to become doctors, surgeons, or
dentists, and so he provides people with "medical freedom" so that anybody
can practice whatever type of medicine they please, and in any manner they
We love the idea of having the freedom to do as we please, but when
we give a large group of people the freedom to do as they please on an
issue that has no right or wrong, we can be certain that they will develop
conflicting and contradictory policies. This would be acceptable if people
were willing to tolerate differences of opinion, but people do not
tolerate differences very well. Humans are like animals. We have a very
strong emotional craving to form tribes of people who are similar to ourselves,
and we are extremely suspicious and fearful of people who are different.
Consider how this issue applies to food. If the American people were
provided with "food freedom", then it is very likely that each of us would
end up eating slightly different foods. This would be acceptable if everybody
would eat what they want and let other people eat what they want, but millions
of people will not tolerate somebody who is eating differently. There are
lots of vegetarians, for example, who are trying to stop people from eating
meat, and there are some people who eat meat but will not tolerate people
who eat certain types of meat, such as horses, dolphins, or dogs.
A certain percentage of the population is too much like an animal to
live in a society in which the people are provided with "food freedom".
An even larger percentage of the population is unable to tolerate "religious
Animals are frightened of things that are different, and humans are
not much more advanced than the animals. We have a difficult time tolerating
people who are different. We want other people to conform to us.
We want them to eat the same food, wear the same clothing, follow the same
hairstyles, and play the same music.
There is no right or wrong to social technology. We must design policies
according to their advantages and disadvantages to society.
What is the advantage to society of providing people with religious freedom?
I cannot think of any. However, I can see lots of disadvantages. For example,
it encourages people to become arrogant jerks who believe that they have
the magic ability to figure out the proper beliefs about religion, gods,
the universe, and life. These arrogant jerks develop conflicting religions,
and then they get into idiotic arguments over an issue that has absolutely
no importance to anybody's life.
We are attracted to the concept of freedom, but people in a modern society
cannot have a lot of freedom. Before we provide people with a freedom,
we have to pass judgment on whether providing that freedom will give us
benefits that outweigh the disadvantages. We are not individual savages
any longer. We are team members. We are gears in a transmission.
Modern society must control the behavior of its citizens so that we cooperate
with one another and treat one another with respect, rather than fight
and irritate one another. We should not encourage people to become arrogant
jerks who push their ideas on their children, spouse, and society.
No advanced nation is providing its citizens with "clothing freedom".
All of us must follow a lot of arbitrary restrictions in regards to clothing.
We have the freedom to dress in any manner when we are inside our own
home, but once we go out in public, we have to follow the guidelines
set by society. Furthermore, some organizations add additional restrictions.
For example, some restaurants, museums, and theaters narrow down your choices
of clothing, and some businesses demand their employees wear certain types
of clothing, gloves, shoes, or hats.
Before we provide people with clothing freedom, we need to pass
judgment on whether that freedom provides us with benefits that outweigh
the disadvantages. What is the advantage to having clothing freedom? I
cannot see how our lives will improve when we have the freedom to follow
our own clothing styles. The citizens are not going to suffer if society
imposes restrictions on clothing. Citizens do not benefit from clothing
There are a lot of advantages to restricting our clothing freedom, such
as ensuring that our clothing and shoes are safe and practical, and that
clothing is different for men and women to make it easy for us to distinguish
between the two. There are some people who want men to be able to wear
women's clothing, but what is the advantage to that? It creates confusion
Unfortunately, no society is yet designing clothing restrictions. Every
society is allowing clothing styles to drift aimlessly and haphazardly.
The end result is that many of our clothing rules are idiotic or irrational.
For example, I would say that businesses are putting pressure on men to
wear excessive amounts of clothing on hot summer days, and most women's
shoes are impractical. I also think that most societies have excessive
paranoia of nudity at swimming areas, while promoting sexual titillation
on television, in offices, and in schools.
The same concept applies to religious freedom. How does a society benefit
by providing the people with religious freedom? I cannot see any benefits.
Providing people with religious freedom results in arrogant jerks who fight
incessantly, so it would be better to restrict religious freedom. When
people are in their home, they can practice whatever religious policies
they please, but when they go out in public, they must follow the guidelines
that are set by society. Of course, in order for a society to restrict
religious freedom, the leaders of society need to design rules that have
intelligent justification, as opposed to what we see in the Middle Ages
during which Kings and Queens would simply impose their particular religious
beliefs on people.
If we define "religion" as a person's belief about how the universe
was created, and how we should behave and treat one another, then everybody
is religious. Everybody has an opinion on these issues. The most significant
difference between us is that at one extreme, some people keep their opinions
to themselves, and at the other extreme, some people organize into groups.
It is beneficial when people discuss their opinions on the creation
of the universe, and how people should behave, but it is destructive for
people to form organized religions and try to force their opinions on other
people. I also consider it destructive to allow organized religions to
put pressure on their members to donate money. I would describe this as
a form of extortion.
Therefore, I recommend that we prohibit all forms of organized religions,
churches, and missionaries. I would not allow any government agency, school,
business, or other organization to promote any type of religious material.
Religion would have to be an "opinion",
not an organization or a "fact".
There would not be any religious material in holidays, either. People would
have the freedom to discuss any issue they please, and they would have
the freedom to do whatever they wanted inside their home, but when they
went out into public, they would have a responsibility to keep their discussions
peaceful and allow other people to believe whatever they want.
I would not provide people with the freedom to push any of their
opinions in schools, on money, during holiday celebrations, or public
artwork. I would not provide people with the freedom to promote their opinions
on T-shirts, either. I think that allowing people to promote religious,
political, and other opinions on T-shirts is encouraging people to become
arrogant jerks who think that they are superior to other people. I think
it encourages destructive attitudes and fights. It is acceptable for people
to have decorative artwork on their clothing, and it makes sense for some
employees to have their name and organization on their clothing so that
we can identify them, but nobody should promote their personal opinions
on their clothing.
The managers of the Mars One project want to provide the people on Mars
with religious freedom, but it would be more sensible to create some guidelines
for religion, and require everybody who goes to Mars to be willing to follow
those guidelines. The people who dislike the guidelines need to be told
to create their own colony.
The Mars One project managers also want the
people on Mars to figure out for themselves what their government and other
social systems will be, but this policy allows the people who arrive first
in the colony to get control of it and determine its fate. Everybody
who arrives later in time will be less likely to have influence.
If people like me were the first to arrive in the colony, then
we would outlaw all organized religions, for example, and we would prevent
future immigrants from changing that policy. If instead, a group of religious
fanatics are the first residents to the Mars colony, they will set a completely
different path for the colony. If British people who worship Queen Elizabeth
are the dominant members of the colony, then it will become Her
Majesty's Mars Colony.
By not determining ahead of time what the colony will be, the initial
residents of the colony will make all of the decisions, and it is very
likely that they will conspire with one another to prevent new arrivals
from gaining influence in society. The Mars colony will be whatever the
initial members want it to be, which would be acceptable if they were truly
wonderful humans, but those initial members are more likely to be mentally
ill. Who else would want to leave the earth and join a group of strangers
from different cultures in an unbelievably dangerous environment without
any idea of how they are going to function as a society?
Mars is more dangerous and brutal than the Antarctic, and it is completely
out of touch with sources of food and supplies. Would you
be willing to join a group of strangers from around the world who want
to start a colony in Antarctica? And imagine if that group had no
idea of how they would make the colony function. If you are not willing
to give up your home, job, and life to join an unorganized group in the
Antarctic, then you are not going to join such a group on Mars.
Our crude emotions can fool us into thinking that life on Mars will
be exciting, but Mars is essentially a radioactive ball of extremely cold
dirt. Sunshine is warm and bright on the earth, but it is cool and dim
on Mars. We cannot walk around on Mars except in stiff, bulky spacesuits.
The bulky clothing that people need in Antarctica would seem comfortable
by comparison. The most exciting tourist attractions on Mars will be of
dirt, rocks, and frozen carbon dioxide. The most barren of Earth's deserts
will seem like a garden of Eden by comparison.
The Mars colony may attract the type of people who sailed on the Mayflower
to America; namely, the "wretched refuse" and "huddled masses" who want
to get away from the ridicule, police, and insults. It may be dominated
by alcoholics, religious fanatics, prostitutes, pedophiles, and unskilled
idiots. The Mars colony might resemble the Pilgrim colony. The pilgrims
died in large numbers because of their inability to care for themselves,
and perhaps partly because they wasted some of their time and resources
on religious activities. It is possible that the Mars colonists will also
have so many emotional and intellectual disorders that a large percentage
of them dies, also.
Face reality! The pilgrims
Americans have a variety of excuses for why the first settlers
to America suffered so much, but a serious analysis of the people who left
England during the 1600s shows that they were the losers of English society.
For example, when John Smith helped to establish and supervise Jamestown
in 1607, he had to deal with people who were not interested in working
or farming. They were more interested in the fantasy of finding gold. As
they began to suffer starvation, Smith had to announce to them, "he
who shall not work, shall not eat".
Later, in 1620, the pilgrims landed in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Their
plan was to create a socialist society in which nobody owned any land,
and everybody shared in the farming chores, and they all shared the food
and material items. Unfortunately, they had tremendous difficulties in
providing themselves with food, and within months they were becoming sick,
and soon about half their population had died. Rather than blame the pilgrims
for their deaths, some Americans, such as Jeff
Sanders, put the blame on "socialism".
Socialism cannot be blamed for the deaths of the pilgrims, or
the deaths that occurred in Russia during the 20th century. I have pointed
out in other files that socialism is an unrealistic system for humans,
but you must understand why socialism
is inappropriate in order to understand why the pilgrims died.
Socialism requires people to become team members
who work for the benefit of the organization. There is nothing inherently wrong
with that style of government. However, it will work only if every
person in the organization has the emotional desires and intellectual ability
to become a contributing team member. It requires everybody to constantly
be thinking of what would be best for the group, and it requires people who
can discuss issues and compromise on policies. It also requires
people who are willing to share material wealth in a fair manner.
Unfortunately, the majority of people are too selfish, arrogant, and
apathetic to use socialism. Most people want to spend their entire lives
titillating their emotions. They are not interested in thinking about what
is best for society, or considering how their actions are going to affect
other people. They do not want to be "team members"; they want to be "special".
They don't want to truly share items, either. They want to be wealthier
than other people. They want to be the center of attention, and they want
to dominate the group. They want other people to follow their views on
religion, abortion, and euthanasia. They do not want to discuss anything
or compromise on policies.
Socialism cannot work with the majority of humans, but by carefully
selecting people who have the qualities necessary for socialism, then a
variation of socialism will indeed be a success. We could describe a corporation
as a variation of socialism. The employees do not own their office area,
desk, or computer. The employees share all of the land, equipment,
and resources of the business. They do not have to pay for their electricity
or their sewage. They are team members who work together for the benefit
of the organization. If the team is successful, then every employee benefits.
In our free enterprise system, some of the employees benefit more than
others, but even with discrepancies in income, the employees are following
a variation of socialism.
A military is even more similar to a socialist society. The sailors
on a submarine, for example, own almost nothing and share almost everything,
including the air they breathe and the beds they sleep in. They
are team members who work for the benefit of the entire group.
A submarine is perhaps the best analogy to what a Mars colony would
be like. A Mars colony will be as cramped and dangerous as a submarine.
The lives of both groups of people are dependent upon technically advanced
equipment and protective shields, and so both groups must consist of members
who have the skills and desires necessary to monitor and
maintain all of that equipment and shielding. Neither group can tolerate
people who are parasitic, sloppy, irresponsible, selfish, arrogant, dishonest,
If a person cannot be a successful team member on a submarine, I would
not send him to a Mars colony. Actually, if I was going to send people
to start a Mars colony, I would recruit people from the military who have
already proven that they have the capability to handle brutal and
life-threatening conditions, and I would ensure that they have already
proven that they can work effectively as team
members. Some of the people who work on offshore drilling
rigs for long periods of time might also be capable of forming a successful
The reason variations of socialism can work for a business and a military
is that both businesses and militaries are willing to follow the philosophy
of evicting people who cannot contribute, or who are destructive.
If the people at Plymouth and Jamestown had evicted the misfits and troublemakers,
then their colonies would have been a success. However, if they had evicted
the people who were not contributing, they would have evicted virtually
Only a few of them seemed interested in becoming team members and doing
Most of the colonists were the defective people of England who were
having trouble surviving in life. The aspect of socialism that they were
attracted to was the concept of sharing other people's food and material
items. They were not attracted to the idea of becoming a team
member who worked each day for the benefit of the group.
Socialism has been a failure everywhere in the world because most of
the people who are attracted to it are defective people who are trying
to become parasites. Socialism will work only if the people are
truly interested in becoming team members, and only if they have
the skills necessary to truly contribute to the group, and only if they
have the emotional ability to evict the people who cannot fit in.
The Mars One colony might
be another pilgrim disaster
A lot of us like to fantasize about traveling into space or
visiting Mars, but not many of us would actually abandon our home and life
and make the trip to Mars, especially not with a group of strangers from
around the world who have no plans on how they are going to make it successful.
If the Mars One project creates a colony by picking from people who are
applying through the Internet, it is conceivable that the colony becomes
full of mentally defective people who are similar to those pilgrims in
The proper way to create a successful colony is to first create
the basic social technology of the colony, and then restrict immigration
to the people who will be happy with that type of colony, and ensure that
the colony has people with the necessary desires and skills to make
the society function.
Unfortunately, because we provide everybody with secrecy, it is difficult
for us to analyze people and determine if they have the necessary qualities
for a Mars colony. Businesses and roommates suffer from this problem, also.
They regularly encounter people who lie about their education, job history,
drug use, criminal background, and mental disorders simply so that they
can get a job or be accepted as a roommate. We can be certain that some
of the people who want to go to Mars will dislike something about the colony,
or not have the necessary skills, and so they lie in order to be accepted.
The best solution to this problem is to stop providing people with
secrecy and demand the right to know the details of the people we live
with. We must also stop tolerating misfits and troublemakers. They
must be evicted, but no society yet is willing to evict misfits.
If the Mars society will not evict misfits, either, then the quality of
their colony will decrease every time another troublemaker gets into the
A larger percentage of the population today is mentally ill than
when the Pilgrims landed in Plymouth. This increases the chances that
the Mars colony will be contaminated with mentally ill people. Imagine
if people like Josef Fritzl, Jerry Sandusky, and the NAMBLA members hide
their pedophile activities and are accepted into the colony. The Mars colony
would have the same problems with pedophilia that we have here on the earth.
For an even more bizarre possibility, imagine if men like this
one and this
get into the colony. (If you don't want to click on the links, those are
two American men who climbed into a public outhouse, apparently because
they were titillated by watching people pee and poop on them.)
Creating a new society requires
What sort of social activities will the people in the Mars
colony have for leisure time? I find it amusing that instead of suggesting
that they develop their own social activities, holidays, calendar, and
Internet, they plan to provide a connection to the Internet and television
of the earth. There will be significant time delay in such a connection,
but as they write,
"If an astronaut would like to watch the Super
Bowl, he or she can request it, and it would be uploaded to the server
I think the reason they are suggesting a connection to the earth is
because they don't have the emotional ability to truly separate from the
earth and start their own social activities. They are behaving like a child
who wants to walk away from his mother, but he cannot let go with both
his hands, so one hand remains clinging to her dress.
The explorers of centuries earlier didn't have radio or cell phones,
so when they were on an exploration, they became completely cut
off from the rest of the world. A more sensible Mars colony would consist
of people who have a similar attitude. They should be able to break away
from the earth, and start their own leisure and social activities. Besides,
the significantly lower level of gravity and other environmental differences
make it foolish for them to mimic the sports and leisure activities on
the earth. They should develop their own activities. Swimming, bicycle
riding, and dancing would be significantly different in that environment.
They should develop activities to fit their world, not mimic what
the people on the earth are doing. They should not want to watch
we should want to watch them. Instead of following us, they should
create a new path in life.
Is the Mars One project a serious operation? It is possible that the
people who started it truly believe in what they are doing and are honestly
trying to do a good job, but we ought to consider the possibility that
the organizers are suffering from some type of mental disorder, or that
the project is a variation of a religion in which the organizers collect
money from unhappy people who hope that they will find salvation on Mars.
It might also be a way for them to meet lonely, frustrated people that
they can use for sex, which seems to happen at some of the bizarre religious
The organizers of this project have set goals for themselves, such as
landing a few astronauts in the year 2021 to begin construction of a settlement
on Mars, and landing a few more astronauts in 2025. However, even if they
are capable of achieving those goals, their Mars colony in 2025 will not
be a true colony. It will be a very crude scientific outpost with just
a few people, and it will be much more dangerous and brutal than the scientific
outposts in the Antarctic. It will not be a place to raise families or
relax. It would be suitable only for men who have a personality similar
to Magellan or Columbus. Specifically, men who are willing to tolerate
unbelievably brutal and life-threatening conditions.
At what point in the future will the "ordinary" people be able to travel
to Mars? It is conceivable that nobody alive today will live long enough
to see ordinary people going to Mars. Rocket technology has improved a
lot during the past few decades, but there are still failures putting a
satellite into earth orbit.
The Mars One organization collected more than $100,000 from donations
and sales of merchandise by the end of June 2013, and they claim that they
need a total of $6 billion for the entire project. The 6 billion figure
reminds me of the 6 million Jews who were gassed and burned by Nazis. What
a coincidence that their estimate of the project is a similar number!
The Mars colony is not
irrelevant to your
Since you are not likely to be interested in joining the Mars
One project, the problems that a Mars colony would face may seem insignificant
to you, but they are very significant to everybody here on the earth.
The reason is that the problems that the Mars colony would face are the
same problems that we face right now
on the earth.
To put this concept in different words, if a person does not
have the intellectual or emotional ability
and desire to discuss and deal with
the social problems of a Mars colony, then he does not have the ability
to handle the social problems that we have here on the earth. Such a person
should not be influencing the future of the human race.
Furthermore, a society is just an organization, so starting a colony
on Mars is not much different from starting a new business. Regardless
of what type of organization we are creating, a group of people must be
assembled into a team that works for a common goal. When people want investors
to provide them with money for a new business, they must show the investors
that they have already selected some people for key positions of the company,
and that they have already developed the basic structure for the company,
and that they have already figured out how the company is going to accomplish
Imagine a group of people trying to get investment money for a new business
in the same manner as the Mars One project is getting investors. Imagine
a person making a proposal to some investors with a speech like this:
"We need $6 million for our business venture.
We plan to create a business in Montana. We don't know how many employees
we will have, but everybody who is interested in becoming an employee can
send us their name. We don't know how we will select employees, but whoever
is selected will be transported to Montana at some point in the future,
although we don't know when. We don't have any idea how the business will
be structured, or how it will operate, or what its goal will be, but the
employees will be free to figure that out once they arrive in Montana."
The people who want to create a Mars colony should first design the
colony. It would be even more sensible for them to find a location here
on the earth for them to set up an experimental colony so that they can
test both their social ideas and the technology that they're going to use
to grow food, process water, etc. They should do these experiments before
they go to Mars, not after they arrive.
In Egypt, people demonstrated a year ago to remove President Mubarak,
and now they just finished another demonstration to remove President Morsi.
As of today, 14 July 2013, all they have accomplished through their demonstrations
is more violence, death, destruction, and chaos. We are not going to bring
ourselves a better government simply by demonstrating on the streets and throwing
rocks. Providing ourselves with a better government requires that we do
a lot of hard work, such as discussing who among us would be a better leader,
and what sort of policies the nation should experiment with. This requires
people who can discuss issues calmly and compromise on policies.
Egypt and other nations have already had hundreds of different
leaders during the past few centuries, but not much improves when a society
gets new leaders. The reason is because the replacements are very similar
in regards to personality, talent, intelligence, and education. The reason
our leaders are so similar to one another is that we select them through
the same process every time. In America, for example, Jews are secretly
promoting the candidates they want, and so during every election we get
Jewish puppets. It makes no difference how many times we remove a government
official. We get a Jewish puppet during every election.
I don't know how the Egyptians are selecting their president, but it
is likely to be by the same process every time, resulting in the same type
We are not going to bring improvements to the world by following the
same procedure over and over and hoping that our failed procedures will
miraculously work properly the next time. We have to be willing to experiment
with a new procedure for selecting leaders rather than continue
following our ancestors.
This concept applies to people who demonstrate in America, also. Instead
of staging demonstrations about President Obama, gay rights, or abortion,
the people who participate in those demonstrations should analyze our problems
and provide intelligent suggestions on what we should experiment with.
Nothing is going to improve from a group of people having a temper tantrum
on the streets. Some of those people might respond that tantrums have removed
President Morsi, but that hasn't done anything yet to improve Egypt. They
are not going to improve their nation by staging tantrums over and over.
A lot of Americans demonstrated during the 1960s and 1970s to stop the
Vietnam War, but I don't think they are responsible for stopping the Vietnam
War, and they did absolutely nothing to stop the subsequent wars.
If, instead, they had started serious discussions about the cause
of the Vietnam war and possible solutions, then they would have eventually
heard the type of accusations that Kay Griggs made.
She said the Vietnam War was instigated by some Jews. If the Vietnam protesters
had been investigating those accusations, then they could have possibly
done some truly beneficial work for the human race. Instead, all they did
was destroy property and kill a few people.
The only way to improve society is to do some hard work. We are
not going to improve a nation simply by throwing rocks at the police. We
have to analyze issues and experiment with possible changes. Unfortunately,
most people do not want to do these analyses. It is difficult and time-consuming
to do analyses. Also, most people are too arrogant to compromise. Most
people prefer to resolve problems like an animal. When an animal
is upset, it will growl, bite, scratch, and kick. The people who are demonstrating
in Egypt and America are behaving exactly the same way.
Reacting to problems with violence and tantrums is justifiable for animals,
but we should no longer tolerate this among adults. In this modern world,
adults who are unhappy with something should be told to analyze
the issue and provide intelligent suggestions, or shut up.
We should not tolerate tantrums from adults or teenagers.
It is possible that the majority of people in the world are so much
like animals that the human race cannot yet tell the adults to stop the
tantrums and resolve issues in an intelligent manner, in which case tantrums
may be the only practical method for resolving disputes for the next few
thousand years. However, we could give this policy a try by prohibiting
demonstrations and watching what happens. It is possible that there are enough
intelligent people to resolve issues without tantrums.
We don't have to worry about hurting ourselves by experimenting with
such a policy. If it turns out that humans are so much like animals that
we cannot resolve issues in any manner other than violent tantrums, we
simply cancel the policy and tell people to go back to having temper tantrums.
We have nothing to fear. We are not going to hurt ourselves by experimenting
We don't have to travel to
Mars for a better life
It is idiotic for us to consider setting up a colony on Mars.
For one reason, we don't have the technology, and it is not likely to become
available during our lifetimes. It would be an incredible struggle for
us to send a few explorers to the moon for a brief trip.
The other and more important reason is that the only way to make life
in a Mars colony more pleasant than life here on the earth is to restrict
immigration to Mars, and to create a better government, legal system, and
other social technology. If we can do that for the Mars colony, then we
can do it here on the earth. All we have to do is take a plot of land,
build a city on it, design a government, legal system, and other social
technology for it, and then restrict immigration to the people who are
willing to accept the social environment of that particular city. After
the people move into the city, they must begin experimenting with their
social affairs, economic system, recreational activities, courtship activities,
If another group of people want to try a slightly different style of
city, then they can take another plot of land, create their own city, and
restrict immigration to people who prefer that style of city.
We can be doing this right now. We don't need to first develop
new technology. All we need are people who have the emotional ability to
turn their back on their ancestors, walk away from their family members,
and experiment with a new life. We also need people who can discuss
issues and compromise on policies rather than fight with one another.
We need people who can be trusted, who are responsible, and who have the
emotional ability to look critically at their own society and their own
Can we find enough people to do this? And if so, are we going to make
this attempt soon, or are we going to die of old age while
we think about it? We have nothing to lose, but a lot to gain.