Friday, December 11, 2009

Now I'll describe how the people live in this imaginary city. Remember, this is an extreme example to give you an idea of how many options we have available to us. Also, I'm describing only the residential area of the city, not the area where the offices and factories are located.

I created a page that has some photos that should help you to visualize the concept of this city, and I numbered the photos so that I can refer to them by number.

If you were to fly in an airplane over the residential area of the city, you would see what looks like modern versions of medieval castles surrounded by trees, grass, walkways, and rivers. To help you visualize this, I created image #1 by combining images of castles and a greenhouse. The medieval castle is the most similar to the type of structure I'm going to describe.

The utility lines would be underground, and the major transportation systems, such as trains, would also be underground.

The primary farms and greenhouses would be located outside of the city.

Each castle would provide a home for hundreds of people. Each castle would also have a variety of restaurants, food markets, and recreational areas for both children and adults. You could think of each castle as being a small community, or as a neighborhood.

The castles in photos 2 and 3 are too small, but they may help you visualize the concept. Imagine that those two castles are extended so that they form a circle around a courtyard, or extended in a serpentine shape to create lots of courtyards. And it would also make them large enough to hold hundreds of people.

Most of the apartment buildings in the world today are ugly both on the inside and the outside, and they're usually surrounded by other apartment buildings, or by ugly parking lots and roads. However, we have the resources and talent to design cities in which every building is beautiful, even the warehouses and factories.

Take a look at photo 4. It shows a mansion in England that has 103 rooms, five swimming pools, a bowling alley, and a heated marble driveway. I think it's ridiculous for society to put so much resources into the home for one family. However, that mansion shows that humans have the ability to design and build attractive structures.

All of our roads, sidewalks, and bicycle paths could be beautiful. Even factories and warehouses could be beautiful and colorful. Take a look at photo 5. That could be one of the underground railroad stations, or it could be inside a factory or warehouse.

Trains could be attractive, also. Photo #6a shows the observation car of a train in Scotland. It's not practical to make every train car look like that, but we could provide ourselves with trains that are comfortable, quiet, and attractive.

Trains can also be controlled by computers to reduce labor and provide us with faster and smoother rides. There are already some small, computer-controlled trains at airports. This concept could be expanded to an entire nation.

We can put our labor and resources into whatever activities we choose. We currently put a lot of our resources into providing mansions and yachts for billionaires, and we provide a lot of resources for gambling casinos, video games, and Hollywood movies. And there are millions of people doing nothing of value in our governments, schools, insurance companies, and banks. All we have to do is shift some of our resources and labor to the design and construction of better cities.
 

So now I'll explain the philosophy behind putting people into these giant castles.

Assume we want to provide housing for 500 families. One option is to build 500 separate homes, each on its own plot of land, and then connect them with roads and utilities. This will require a certain amount of resources and land.

By comparison, when we but the same amount of people into a giant castle, we could provide the same amount of living space for everybody, but for fewer resources. Even though the walls and flooring of the castle would have to be much stronger and more soundproof than those of single-family homes, overall fewer resources would be used. For example, none of the homes in the castle would need their own water heater, or furnace, or air conditioner. And because many of the walls would be shared between the homes, it would take less energy to heat and cool the castle compared to hundreds of separate homes.

Furthermore, the homes in the castle wouldn't need to be connected by roads. A castle would need escalators, elevators, and motorized walkways, but building and maintaining those devices would be much less of a burden on society than providing an enormous network of roadways and automobiles.

Another big advantage to putting people in these castles is that an enormous amount of land becomes available around the castles for farms and parks. Putting farms and greenhouses close to the castle would allow people to have easy access to truly fresh food, including food that doesn't grow in that climate.

The castles also give us more options in regards to telephones. For example, we could design cell phones specifically for use within these castles. These phones would be able to operate at extremely low power levels because they wouldn't need to cover large distances. This would reduce the size of the batteries, which in turn reduces the amount of toxic garbage that we produce.

And if it turns out that cell phone frequencies are dangerous to our health, we might be able to reduce the power to such a low level that it becomes harmless, or we could switch to some other frequency.

The castles would also make it easy for the city to provide wireless connections to the Internet. In fact, the city would have no reason to run phone or other communication wires into homes or businesses. All of the connections could be wireless. The castles would also make wireless connections to a central computer more practical, which means that it would be more practical for a laptop computer to be a terminal rather than a complete computer.

Each castle could also provide its own positioning system so that receivers within the castle would be able to identify their location in three dimensions within the castle. And because the positioning system is located within the castle, accuracy would be phenomenal, which could be useful if we developed robots that could travel around the castle.
 

All of the castles would be designed to have a lot of courtyards. Some or all of the courtyards could have a roof with transparent or translucent sheets of glass or plastic, as in the courtyard of photo 7. This would provide a year-round courtyard for the residents. These covered courtyards would make life much more pleasant in the cold and rainy climates. Some areas of the roof could even have colored glass for decorative purposes.

All of the castles would be connected to each other and to the other buildings in the city by a transportation system that runs underground.

Each castle would have restaurants, markets, recreational areas, and some simple medical and dental facilities. Most castles would be designed for families, so most would also have a school for young children. However, we could design some castles exclusively for older people without children, or for students. The factories, advanced medical facilities, and most businesses would be located in the city.

As I mentioned already, food is provided for free in this imaginary city. Each of the castles would be large enough to hold a variety of restaurants and markets. Although the restaurants are only open during certain hours, the food markets would be open all the time since they don't need employees to sell the food.

By providing every castle with its own restaurants and markets, the people living there would be able to have easy access to food regardless of the weather. Everybody could take a short walk, or a short ride in an elevator or escalator, whenever they want food.

Since children behave more like animals, they would be treated differently than adults. For example, they would not have access to all of the facilities, and they would have special restaurants and food markets.

If the city doesn't have any problem with crime or pedophilia, parents would be able to let their children go to restaurants by themselves and eat with other children. The parents wouldn't have to walk their children to the restaurant or eat with their children, unless they wanted to. This is another example of how a nation of honest people has more options available to them. By raising standards for the people we live with, we could give ourselves such options as letting children feed themselves.

Another advantage to living in these castles and having free access to food is that none of the homes need kitchens or dining rooms. The homes in these castles are like the rooms of a luxury hotel. If a person wanted a miniature refrigerator, he would be allowed to take one from storage and put it into his home, and if another person wanted a coffeemaker or a toaster oven, then he could put that item into his home. But none of the homes would have complete kitchens or complete dining rooms.

The philosophy behind this type of city is that by making food markets and restaurants easily accessible, the city doesn't have to put any resources into private kitchens, dining rooms, and utility lines.

This reduces the size and complexity of the homes without reducing the living area of the home. Photo #8 might help you visualize this type of home. It shows a hotel suite that consists of a bedroom, living room, and bathroom, but no kitchen or dining room.

The real estate and resources that would have gone into private kitchens and dining rooms could be used for other projects, such as providing areas for people to socialize or get together for a hobby.

Furthermore, by not providing the homes with private kitchens or dining rooms, the city doesn't need factories, warehouses, or mechanics to produce, stock, or repair low quality, inexpensive kitchen equipment. Instead they would produce a smaller amount of higher quality equipment for restaurants.

And consider utilities. If all the people in the castle are responsible with utilities, then there would be no need to put utility meters on each home or business. Meters would only be needed in a few locations in order to identify broken utility lines.

The resources that would have been put into manufacturing and maintaining all of those meters could be put into something more productive, and the people involved with reading the meters and billing everybody for their utility usage would be able to do something more productive, also. This is another reason to raise standards for the people in a city.

Next consider what leisure time would be like in the city. Unlike grasshoppers, which I've seen sit motionless for long periods of time, humans want to do something in our leisure time. Almost everybody develops some hobby, or wants to get together with other people to socialize. Therefore, every castle would be designed with plenty of rooms of different sizes for groups of people to get together for hobbies. If a social club grew larger or smaller, they would move to a larger or smaller room. There would also be plenty of lounges for people to socialize on a more casual basis, as seen in photo 9.

Since the castle would be designed for a specific population level, it would be designed so that there are enough restaurants, recreational rooms, and lounges for everybody. And everything would be available for free, just like the lounges of a hotel.

To make life more interesting, the recreational rooms would be designed with different architecture and furnishings. Photos 10a to 10d show some examples.

Another advantage to having restaurants and food markets so close to all of the people is that when somebody doesn't want to leave his home for a meal, such as when he is sick, or recovering from surgery, it would be very easy for somebody to bring food to him.

Furthermore, if the castle was designed specifically for robots, such as by providing special elevators for robots, and making sure that there are paths that robots can easily travel on, then it would be very easy to program the layout of the castle into a computer and have robots handle simple tasks, such as delivering food. A person would order food from a restaurant, and the people at the restaurant would put it into a container and give it to a robot. The robot would then take the food to the person's home, and pick up the container when he's finished.

Since the robot never leaves the castle, it doesn't have to deal with unexpected problems, such as snowstorms or objects in the road.

The Japanese are already experimenting with robots that can perform simple tasks, such as carrying a tray of food, or providing support for people as they get in and out of a wheelchair. Photo #11 shows one of these robots.

However, the Japanese are trying to make the robots deal with the buildings and equipment that we humans are currently using, and that's difficult. It would be much easier if we designed a castle specifically for robots to easily travel between any two destinations to drop off and pick up items.

If we design laundry machines specifically for use by robots, then robots could provide laundry services. The robots would be able to pick up and deliver laundry anywhere within the castle. A person would use his computer to request a robot to pick up his laundry, and he would request the type of service he wanted, such as hot water or cold water, and he could specify when and where to deliver the laundry to.

For example, a mother could be having lunch in a courtyard with her friends and their babies, and she could request a robot to come to the courtyard to pick up some diapers, and she could tell the robot to deliver them to her home after they have been cleaned.

The robots would not necessarily fold the clothing, but they would clean it and deliver it.

By designing a castle for robots, the robots could also do a lot of the cleaning of the floors, windows, doors, and sidewalks.

The advantage to having robots handle these simple tasks is that the city wouldn't need as many unskilled workers. I think we would create a more pleasant society when we treat everybody in a more equal manner, and one way to achieve this is to develop machines to do the unskilled labor.

Robots have disadvantages, such as their incredible stupidity, and we have to design the castle so that they can easily travel around it, and they require a lot of expensive maintenance, but I think it's better for us to suffer the disadvantages of robots rather than the disadvantages of a society that has a class of unskilled laborers.

If having a robot perform laundry services seems ridiculous, consider how much resources and trouble it saves. In a city with 1 million single-family homes, there would be as many as 1 million washing machines and 1 million clothes dryers. The people would have to produce all of those machines, and most of the time they would sit idle. There would also be utility lines running to all of those machines, and every home would need space for those machines.

By comparison, if people are living within a castle, and if the castle is designed for robotic washing and drying machines, then the homes wouldn't need laundry facilities. This would reduce the size of the homes without reducing the living space for the people, and it would reduce the number of utility lines running to the homes. And it would reduce the noise in the homes. And nobody would have to worry about maintaining laundry machines.

Since the robotic laundry machines would service more than one household, they would be put to a lot more use rather than sitting idle 99% of the time, so it would be a better use of society's resources.

Would YOU be willing to let robots provide laundry services in order to avoid having a class of unskilled peasants? Would you be willing to live in a city in which you didn't have your own kitchen or dining room?

We might also be able to reduce labor and resources by providing every castle with a central vacuum system rather than expect every home to have their own vacuum cleaner. Each home would need only a hose to connect to the central system. This could also reduce the noise and dust within the castle.

And consider the issue of private property. Would you be willing to live in a city in which you are not allowed to own any land?

Nobody in the castles I'm describing is allowed to own land. All of the land is maintained by the city. This would make it much more practical for the city to develop and use robotic lawn mowing equipment.

To understand the value of robotic lawnmowers, consider that if a city consists of 1 million single-family homes, and each home has a private yard to mow, then that city would need up to 1 million lawnmowers, and most of them would be idle most of the time. Furthermore, most people would mow their lawn during their day, on the weekends, when everybody else is trying to relax, so everybody would occasionally have to listen to somebody else's lawn mower.

By comparison, the same amount of land, if under the control of a government agency, would need only a few robotic lawn mowers that operate during the night. Therefore, instead of building a million, low-cost lawnmowers, the city would build a few much more expensive, extremely quiet, and much higher-quality robotic lawnmowers. And by having the lawnmowers operate at night, most people would never notice them.

There are advantages to single-family homes, but the disadvantage is that they are a big burden on both the people and society.

When people are allowed to own land, then they become responsible for it. This brings up the issue of freedom, once again. Is a person free when he can own land? I would say a person is more free when he doesn't have the burden of land ownership.

When the community owns the land, then the government takes care of the land, and this makes it much more practical to provide much more decorative gardens and parks. Photo 12 shows an example of what the view could be like from one of the patios of a castle.

Swimming pools, tennis courts, trampolines, and other recreational products are another example of this concept. If a city consists of 1 million families, and each family wanted its own swimming pool and other recreational equipment, a tremendous amount of resources would have to be devoted to providing all those recreational items, and most of the time they would sit idle.

By comparison, the people in these imaginary castles could provide themselves with swimming pools and other recreational services with much fewer resources. Furthermore, they could use some of their extra resources to make those recreational items much more attractive. Photo 13 shows a more decorative swimming pool and Jacuzzi. We could go even further and put swimming pools within gardens that are full of plants that love moisture, such as orchids and ferns, and the entire area could be enclosed so that it's available all year.

This brings up the issue of freedom once again. Would you have more freedom in a city that provided you with a single-family home and your own swimming pool, or in the imaginary castles that I'm describing?

I would say you have more freedom in the castle because you're free of yard work, and you don't have to worry about maintaining swimming pools, or providing your children with recreational items. You also don't have to deal with driving or maintaining a private automobile. It would be easy to connect all of the buildings in the city with public transportation. And in many cases, you would be able to walk to where you want to go or ride an elevator. You don't even have to shop for food or cook for yourself if you don't want to. You could go to restaurants all the time.

You might respond that eating at restaurants is annoying because they're cramped and noisy, and you feel rushed compared to eating in a dining room at your own home. However, if that is how you respond, then you don't yet understand the concept that I'm describing, so let me go over it again in regards to dining areas.

It's true that the restaurants in the world today are very cramped, and sometimes you have to wait in line for a table to become available. And once you are in the restaurant, you can easily feel pushed into finishing your meal quickly so that the table becomes available to somebody else.

But that's not the type of restaurant I'm describing. That's the type of restaurant that results from our chaotic free enterprise system.

In the city that I'm describing, nobody needs a complete kitchen or even a dining room. Living in these castles would be similar to living in a luxury hotel or a cruise ship. Your home would be a place to sleep, and a place to be by yourself and relax, or visit with a friend. You could easily have snacks in your home, but you normally would not eat meals there, or invite people to your home for dinner.

By not providing the homes with dining rooms or kitchens, all of those resources and all of that space could be put into restaurants and markets and picnic areas.

The castle would be designed so that there is an excess of tables so that nobody has to wait in line. It is certainly likely that occasionally a restaurant will be so popular that more people will want to eat there than there are tables, but the city would be designed so that there are plenty of restaurants and plenty of tables and plenty of room between the tables.

Furthermore, some of the restaurants would be designed with tables for just one person, as well as tables for just two people. In our free enterprise system, not many restaurants want to serve one person by himself. And if they do serve one person, it's usually at a bar. But in this city, the government is the landlord, and the government is not concerned about profiting from the restaurants.

Therefore, in addition to offering a bar where individuals can get a quick meal or drink, some areas of the restaurants and gardens would be specifically set aside with tables for just one person. The tables would allow an individual to eat his meals in comfort, and the tables would be large enough for him to use a laptop computer.

Furthermore, the smaller tables that are designed for one or two people would be placed along the windows and other locations that have the best views. Photo 14 shows such a dining room. The philosophy behind this concept is that when a group of people are having a meal together, many of them will have their backs to the window, and they will be be socializing anyway, so the view will be wasted. By comparison, when a person is eating by himself, or with a friend, he is much more likely to look out the window and enjoy the view.

In our cities today, the areas between buildings are used for roads, parking lots, and garbage containers. But in the castles, the transportation system, sewage, and garbage facilities would be underground. The area between the buildings of the castle could be used for courtyards. By covering the courtyards with glass roofs, they would be comfortable every day of the year. This would provide a lot of land for year-round gardens, swimming pools, dining tables, and lounge areas.

There are lots of possible designs for these castles. A simple design would be a circular castle that has a circular courtyard in the center. A castle could consist of a lot of separate buildings, also, and the gaps between the buildings would be covered courtyards.

By designing a castle with lots of courtyards, there would be plenty of areas for people to socialize or have meals without feeling cramped. The philosophy behind designing a castle with a lot of attractive courtyards is to encourage people to get out of their homes more often. I think it's especially important for children to spend more time with other children rather than remaining alone in a bedroom with some toys or video games.
 

If you've ever stayed in an expensive hotel or been on a cruise ship, you might have an easier time understanding the concept I'm describing. Living in one of these castles would be like living on a cruise ship, or in an expensive hotel. When you want to eat, all you do is walk out of your room and go to one of the restaurants. When you want to visit somebody, you don't have to invite them over to your home. You can meet them in one of the recreational or lounge areas. If you want to get together with friends or a family for a meal, you can meet at a restaurant, or you can pick up food at a market and meet at a picnic area.
 

Parents in this city wouldn't have to provide their children with toys, and they wouldn't have to drive their children to school or to visit their friends. The city would provide recreational areas for children, and the children would be able to walk to their recreational areas, and to school, and to visit their friends. Everything the children need would be available within their castle. Only the adults and teenagers would want to leave the castle and go to the city or to another castle.
 

Now I'll discuss another very important advantage to living in this type of castle in which you don't own your home or much of anything else.

The city government would be the landlord, but nobody would have to purchase or rent their homes. The city would provide homes to the people just like parents provide bedrooms to their children. Since nobody has to purchase their home or sign leases, everybody is free to move from one home to another. The city officials wouldn't care where anybody lives, so people would be free to move whenever they please, and as often as they please. The government's attitude would be similar to that of a hotel desk clerk when somebody requests a different room.

In this imaginary city, all of the people are responsible, so when a person moves out of his home, he cleans it and leaves it in good condition.

Since all of the homes are free and virtually identical, nobody would select a home according to its price, size, or quality. Instead, they would select a home mainly according to where their friends live.

The city would follow the philosophy that friends should live near one another rather than travel to visit one another. To make it easier for friends to move near one another, the city would be designed with more homes than people.

There would always be vacancies in the city, although not necessarily in the particular castle that a person wanted to live in. However, the vacancies would make it easy for people to move around, and it would allow a large group of friends to move at one time to an area that has a lot of vacancies.

The people who would move around the most often would be those who are young and still meeting people and looking for a spouse. Through the years of moving around, they would eventually settle around some friends, so older people wouldn't move very often.

Every castle would be allowed to turn away people they didn't want living with them, and they could evict people that they decided that they didn't like. The philosophy that the city would follow is that each castle is like a community, and each community would be nicer if the people get along with one another.

It would not be considered cruel to evict people. Rather, it would be considered a tough love philosophy that forces people to continue their quest to find friends rather than settle with people they don't really get along with.

Although this tough love policy seems cruel, through the years it would result in every castle consisting of people who enjoy being with one another. This would make their lives much more pleasant compared to the neighborhoods today in which people tolerate one another rather than enjoy one another.

Most people eventually get old and frail, and many people develop disabilities even when young from diseases or accidents. It's difficult for people with physical disabilities to live in an area designed for younger and healthier people, and it's also awkward for everybody.

Growing old or developing a physical disability would be much easier in these imaginary cities. For one reason, nobody owns their home, so it's very easy for a person to move. Therefore, when a person becomes weak and wants to move to a ground floor, or to an area specifically for people needing medical attention, he just moves. He doesn't have to worry about selling his home or furniture. Furthermore, by living in such close contact with everybody else, it's very easy to provide people with food and medical services.
 

As with a luxury hotel or cruise ship, the city would own all of the basic necessities that you need, including the furniture for your home. If you didn't like the particular furniture that was already in the home, you could look through the other furniture that the city has in storage and replace it. You wouldn't own the furniture. You would own only a few possessions, such as some clothing and other items.

This may seem like a ridiculous way to live, but it provides an incredible level of freedom. Most people consider material items and land to be sources of happiness, but they are actually a burden on you. When society is responsible for the land, buildings, and other major material items, it becomes very easy for you to move around. And you don't have to waste any time maintaining material items.

This type of freedom would be most useful when you're young and still meeting people, and learning about the world, and trying to figure out what you want from life. But even after you settle down with some friends, your life will be more relaxing when you don't have to deal with material items. Let the city deal with the house, the furniture, and the land.

Furthermore, when a person dies, it is easier on his family members when he doesn't own many items because they won't have to waste their time sifting through his pile of items.

Another important advantage to living in a city that provides our basic necessities is that when a child becomes an adult and gets a job, he can immediately move into a furnished home of his own. He doesn't have to struggle for years to save up money for a home and furniture. And he doesn't have to depend upon wedding presents for kitchen items. It would be easy for people to get married and start a family while they are still young.

Another advantage to letting the city handle housing is that when a married couple gets divorced, they don't have to divide up a home, land, or other items. They just move into different homes. Their children are the only issue that will concern them.

In our cities today, everything has to be purchased. Some bathrooms even have coin operated toilets. Requiring people to purchase everything is a burden on society because it requires a lot of sales clerks, accountants, and other people to process the money and handle the sales. People are also needed to design, manufacture, repair, and dispose of the cash registers, coin operated devices, and other equipment.

There are certain items that we all want on a regular basis, such as food, bathrooms, and public transportation, and it would be more efficient for the city to provide these items for free.

By providing the basic necessities for free, a lot of people become available for new projects, or they could provide labor for existing projects so that there is enough labor to do a better job. For example, instead of 10 men producing an ugly sidewalk of gray concrete, there might be enough labor available to put 100 men on the same job, and that would give them the necessary labor to make the sidewalk much more attractive.

When designing a better city, we should make a decision about which items should be provided for free, and which items need to be controlled because they're either in short supply or too expensive, or delicate, or dangerous.

For example, I think the low-cost items, such as bicycles, should be provided for free. There would be no need for bicycles within the type of castles I'm describing, but the area outside the castles could be full of bicycle paths.

Rather than require people to purchase their own bicycles and keep bicycles inside their homes, the city could provide a variety of sizes and styles of bicycles, and the city would keep the bicycles at different locations around the castle, such as near the train stations.

If you, or a group of your friends, decided to go for a ride on bicycles, you would go to one of the train stations where bicycles are stored, and then take a bicycle that fits you. Then you would ride around. When you're finished, you could either take the bicycle back to the location you picked it up from, or you could leave it at some other location, even if it is another castle.

Since the city maintains the bicycles, they wouldn't care where people leave the bicycles. If a lot of bicycles began to accumulate at a particular location, then some of those bicycles would be put onto the public transportation system and dropped off at a location that didn't have as many bicycles. By putting bicycle locations next to public transportation terminals, it would be very easy for the bicycles to be transported from one location to another.

Once again this brings up the issue of freedom. Do people have more freedom when they can purchase their own bicycles? I don't think so.

Material items are a burden. When you own your own bicycle, you have to maintain it and find a storage location for it. But when the city owns the bicycles, you have so much freedom that you don't even have to return the bicycle to the location that you picked it up from.
 

Living in this type of city would also make it possible to eliminate, or at least discourage, the practice of giving gifts at birthdays, holidays, and weddings. Centuries ago people wanted gifts because there was never enough food or clothing or other items. But the technology we have today makes it so easy for us to produce excessive amounts of food and material items that we can easily provide everybody with the basic necessities. People in this city wouldn't need to give each other any gifts.

By ending the custom of giving gifts, holidays and birthdays become relaxing social affairs. More importantly, society avoids all of the people involved in the design, production, and distribution of gifts, and the production of garbage is reduced.
 

Another advantage to living in this type of city is that it becomes easier for people to have different jobs in different cities, such as people who work in Alaska during the summer but who are not needed during the winter, or who just can't stand living there during the winter. With our current economic system, it is expensive to maintain two homes in two different cities.

Since the homes in the castles I'm describing are just bedrooms, living rooms, and bathrooms, it would be easy to provide people with a home in two different cities. Since nobody would own his home or much of anything else, nobody would have to worry about buying or selling a house or furniture, or renting a room. When the people in Alaska wanted to leave for the winter, they would just put their few possessions into suitcases, and then travel to another city for the winter. And then they would work at their winter job.

The concept of a city that provides people with two homes brings up another issue that we should think about before we design a new city. I think we should change our attitude towards jobs and businesses.

The current attitude is that an employee is like a donkey or a machine. The business owns the employee. But if we raise the standards for people in society so that we can operate like a big family, then we have other options available.

The father of a well behaved group of children doesn't have to treat his children like donkeys. If all of his children are willing to contribute to the household chores, the father doesn't care which of them does which chore. And he wouldn't care if the children sometimes swap jobs with each other.

If we could create a society in which everybody was responsible and willing to contribute to society, then we could give ourselves these same options. For example, we could allow people to have several part-time jobs rather than one full-time job, and we could allow people to swap jobs with one another.

It's possible for people today to have two or more part-time jobs rather than one full-time job, but people that do so are penalized. We make more money, and get more benefits, by having just one, full-time job. However, by changing our attitude towards jobs and businesses, we could allow people to do another job simply because they enjoy it.

For example, a teacher or an engineer might enjoy operating a restaurant one day a week, or one day a month. Or perhaps a railroad mechanic would like to work one day a week on a farm or as an electrician. Or a carpenter might like to do office work a few days a week.

With our current economic system, this would be virtually impossible. But when everybody is responsible and willing to contribute, we could easily allow a person to have two or more jobs.

Before we design a new city, we should consider what our role in the economy should be. Our current economic system has evolved into a war zone in which businesses fight with one another. Employees are treated as expendable pawns in a game of economic conquest.

I think we should change this attitude. Society should be in control of the businesses, and we should be working for society, not a particular business. The businesses should be regarded as intangible organizations, not as our masters.

We need competition, so the businesses would compete with one another, but the competition should be to inspire one another to help society, not to fight with one another over sales and profit.

It wouldn't make sense for an engineer to get a part-time job with his competitor, but if he wanted a part-time job in some other area, why not let him? If he's doing productive work in both part-time jobs, and if he's happier by doing this, then we all benefit by letting him have two part-time jobs.

Furthermore, there are some jobs that are difficult for us to do all day because they put a strain on some particular muscle or joint, or they are mentally difficult, or they strain our eyes.

In our current economic system, what often happens with these type of jobs is that people quit after a short period of time, or the business owners tolerate a certain amount of goofing off throughout the day simply because they realize that nobody can stand doing the job.

A better solution would be to allow people to work at more than one part-time job without penalizing them.

For example, a person might be willing to work on a very annoying assembly line in the morning, and then after lunch somebody replaces him and he goes to work at a more relaxing job. Who is harmed by letting people work at two different jobs? As long as everybody is doing productive work, we could allow people to have three jobs, or four jobs.
 

In case it hasn't occurred to you, the type of city that I'm describing requires a very high quality government. The city officials would have to deal with a lot of the work that is handled automatically by money. For example, consider restaurants. In our current economic system, a restaurant stays in business by selling enough meals to pay its expenses. But in the city I'm describing, the city officials have to decide whether a person operating a restaurant should be allowed to continue, or if he should be told to find another job. The city officials would have to occasionally review the performance of people operating restaurants and pass judgment over whether there are enough people interested in their service to let them continue.

If the city officials were as dishonest and incompetent as government officials are today, this system would not work at all.

For example, men like Bill Gates, who are trying to withdraw from society, are not going to provide us with leadership. They have no interest in you or me or society. And don't expect leadership from the men who are fighting to become the top man in the social hierarchy and who are trying to impress us with a gigantic house and a giant boat.

And consider what would happen if religious fanatics or organized crime members get into leadership positions. They would give special preference to members of their particular group. This is what the Jews are doing right now. This is why our society today is dominated by Barbra Streisand, Wolf Blitzer, and other Jews.

In order for us to develop a more advanced city, we need higher quality government officials, and that requires higher quality citizens. We can't improve the world if most people ignore crime and corruption. We need people who will take an active role in society.

Everybody wants the benefits of modern society, but most people refuse to share in the responsibilities. Instead, they make excuses that they want to help, but there's nothing they can do because they're just ordinary people. However, this is simply an excuse to behave like an irresponsible, selfish animal. It is very easy for ordinary people to help.

For example, while the ordinary people are talking about Tiger Woods, they could also spread information about how we have been lied to about 9/11, and the NASA Moon Landing, and the Holocaust. But they don't want to pass around this type of information. They don't want to even pass a link to my website. They want to play like children.

As I've tried to point out many times, we can't change people. We have to face the fact that the majority of people have a mind that is more similar to our primitive ancestors than a modern human.

Most people want to sit around a campfire, eat, and struggle to be the center of attention. And women like to play with babies, and men like to have sex. Most people don't want to deal with the problems of the modern world. They only want the benefits.

In order for us to develop a more advanced city, the citizens have to be much more responsible. They can't ignore corruption or pedophilia or murders or plagiarism. The citizens have to have a more active role in protecting and helping society. They must be more than a talking monkey. They must be a human.

The reason I wanted to discuss this city of castles is to show you that the more honest and responsible a group of people are, the more options they have for designing cities and economic systems and school systems.

We don't have to continue living in a world that is ugly, chaotic, and violent. We don't have to live in a world in which we worry about children being molested, or material items being stolen.

If we can find enough responsible humans, and if we can put them in control of the nation, or the world, then we can start experimenting with new cities and new social technology. We could change the purpose of our economic system from sales and profits to making life better for the human race.

We should consider the earth as a paradise, not as a business opportunity, and we should look at other people as potential friends, not as customers, employees, or servants.

However, I don't see how we're going to get better leadership unless the military throws out the current leadership and sets up a temporary government so that we can develop a better way of selecting government officials rather than letting the ordinary people vote.

I think a lot of the criminal Jews are starting to worry that the military may take action because there are more remarks on the Internet today about how the military should not turn against its own people. The Jews are trying to fool us into thinking that it's wrong for the military to take action against American citizens, but this is just a trick. The police and military should protect us from destructive people, regardless of whether those destructive people are American citizens or foreigners, and regardless of whether they are Nobel prize winners, business executives, sheriffs, or military officials.

If you look at the history of the Zionist movement, then you can see that after their network got officially established around 1896, Jews began emigrating from Russia to other nations, but not to become contributing members to our societies. Rather, they are diabolical criminals and parasites who are trying to infiltrate our organizations and conquer us.

When these Jews get together, they don't talk about how to work with us. They talk about how to sustain hatred and anger of Germans, and how to promote the Holocaust, and how to promote hatred of Muslims, and how to promote pity for Jews. They think about starting fights among us. They think about cheating us. They think of new ways to play the role of a victim. They are NOT our friends; they are our enemies.

So, if somebody tells you that the military should never turn against its own people, then you can respond, "Yes! I agree with you! The military should protect the respectable people and direct their weapons only towards the destructive and parasitic freaks!"

Don't be fooled by the Jewish propaganda. We can create a world in which everybody enjoys life and one another. This is not a silly fantasy; rather, this is a real opportunity that is available to us right now, and I suggest that we take it, and the sooner the better.

Well, that will end this series of audio files!