How many older men are titillated by her wrinkly skin and age spots? If older men were truly attracted to older women, then the pornography would have to change according to the age of the customer. The Playboy magazines would have different editions for different ages because the old men would not want to look at pictures of teenage girls. Instead, the old men would be titillated by wrinkly and dry skin, varicose veins, age spots, saggy breasts, dry vaginas, and gray hair. Wealthy old men would want old women as wives, not young women.

The sex robots would also have to be designed differently for different ages. In reality, there is going to be only one type of sex robot, and that will be a robot that looks like a teenage girl.

There are exceptions in what men are attracted to, of course, such as the homosexual men, but I'm referring to the typical men, not the exceptions.

There are businesses that offer to edit the photos of little girls, such as the photo to the right, but they never offer to make the little girls look like 70-year-old women. Instead, they try to make the girls look like little teenagers. Businesses will also edit photos of adult women to make them look younger, not to make them look older. The reason is simply because we are most attracted to teenage girls.

These concepts apply to women, also. Women are most sexually attracted to men in their 20s who are physically healthy, and as women get older, they do not develop an attraction to wrinkly old men. An 80-year-old woman is just as attracted to a 20-year-old man as a 20-year-old woman.

Also, women have a very strong craving to grab at, kiss, and touch babies and children, and as the women grow older, that emotion remains exactly the same. Older women do not lose their interest in babies and develop an interest in older children. An 80-year-old woman has the same attraction to babies as a 20-year-old woman.

I think women will have a better understanding of men if they look seriously at themselves. Specifically, I think the craving that women have to grab at and kiss babies is the same emotion that men have to grab at and kiss women. However, women are not reprimanded when they behave in this manner because:

1) Women do not become sexually aroused when they touch babies, and so they are regarded as being affectionate, but when men touch women, we can become sexually aroused.

2) Babies and children do not whine about abuse when women touch or kiss them, not even when the women are strangers. By comparison, women have strong inhibitions about being touched by men. Women even have limits on how much they want their husband to touch them. Women were not intended to be sex toys; they are designed to be mothers.

As a result of these differences between men and women, women do not have to exert much self-control over their craving to touch babies, whereas men must exert a lot of self-control around women, including their own wives.

The word "pedophile" refers to adults who are attracted to children below the age of sexual maturity, so most men are not pedophiles with that definition. However, men of all ages are more strongly attracted to teenage girls than any other age group. Unfortunately, most men will not admit that they have an attraction to teenage girls, mainly because our societies are promoting the attitude that such an attraction is perverted, sick, evil, disgusting, or dirty.

One of the unfortunate aspects of humans and animals is that we have no interest in honesty or reality. We tend to believe whatever we want to believe, and we create false images of ourselves to impress other people. We frequently ignore reality and create a fantasy world for ourselves. Furthermore, our arrogance causes us to boast about ourselves and criticize other people rather than be serious about ourselves and other people.

For example, when I claim that men are attracted to teenage girls, some men are likely to boast that they are attracted to older women, and that my view of men is distorted because I am assuming my perverted attraction to teenage girls is typical of men. My response to such accusations is that those men are more proof of how men are incredibly arrogant; that we try to impress people with false images of ourselves; and that we ignore reality and create fantasy worlds for ourselves.

If a 70-year-old man truly had attractions to 70-year-old women, then we would have seen lots of evidence of this by now, such as wealthy, older men showing a preference for older women rather than Anna Nicole Smith, and we would see that prostitutes for older men are old women rather than young women.

Some of the men who boast that they don't have an attraction to teenage girls can see that they have an attraction to teenage girls, but they do not admit to it because they don't want to listen to the idiotic accusations that they are perverts.

However, some of the men who boast that they don't have an attraction to teenage girls are lying to themselves and other people. They are living in a fantasy world. They are creating a false image of themselves. They are climbing onto a pedestal and pretending that they are better than other men. Their crude behavior is detrimental to themselves and other people.

The men who can be honest about themselves are better suited to this modern world because their acceptance of reality will allow them to do a better job of dealing with life's problems. They will not be trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

No society yet encourages people to be honest. Instead, we are encouraging people to lie about themselves. An old man who publicly admits that he is attracted to teenage girls will be condemned as a pervert. He will not be praised for having the ability to seriously analyze himself and admit what he finds.

We should change our attitudes on what is admirable in a person. The people who are capable of honesty are showing advanced human qualities, and the people who create false images are behaving like animals. We should admire a person who is capable of noticing and admitting to having imperfections, crude emotions, and limitations. We should not admire the people who create false images of themselves and pretend that they are better than everybody else.

Although parents discourage children from lying about certain issues, such as whether they took food from the refrigerator, they do not encourage their children to be honest about themselves. Parents are actually encouraging their children to become arrogant and unrealistic because parents have a tendency to praise their children. This encourages the children to be arrogant and unrealistic, rather than encourage them to exert self-control, learn to deal with criticism, and learn to face reality.

We all love praise, but praise encourages arrogance and laziness. An unfortunate aspect of human nature is that we will often benefit from something we don't like, and we often suffer when we get what we want. For some examples:

• We benefit from constructive criticism, but we want praise, which encourages arrogance.
• We benefit when we eat healthy foods, but we want to eat the foods that are the most titillating, which can harm our health.
• We benefit when we have to work every day, but we want handouts, inheritances, and pampering, which causes us to become lazy and unappreciative of life.

It should be noted that these characteristics cause trouble only in modern societies; they would have been beneficial during prehistoric times. For example, prehistoric people had to face life's problems by themselves, so they needed a lot of arrogance. They had to believe they had the talent to find food, and protect themselves and their families from predators and neighboring tribes. If a prehistoric person did not have a lot of confidence in himself, then he would have been living in constant fear of dying, or his family dying. He would have been miserable.

Prehistoric people could also eat whatever they pleased because they didn't have to be concerned about eating excessive amounts of an unhealthy food. Both men and women also had to work every day because there was no such thing as holidays, inheritances, retirement, alimony, welfare, maids, or trust funds.

In the modern world, however, we hurt ourselves when we struggle to please our emotional cravings because our cravings are not suited for this modern world. If we do whatever pleases us, we encourage dishonesty, arrogance, unhealthy eating habits, laziness, false images, fantasy worlds, and parasitic behavior. Modern humans must push themselves into exerting self-control and making wise decisions. We must become more honest with ourselves and other people. If you need some reasons for why honesty is so important today:

• When we are dishonest with other people, we make it difficult for us to find a compatible spouse and friends.

• When we are dishonest with potential employers, we can get into jobs that we cannot do properly, or into teams that we are incompatible with.

• When we are dishonest with ourselves, we can cause ourselves emotional turmoil when we experience failures. The reason is because when we have an unrealistic view of our abilities, we are likely to come to the conclusion that our failure is due to somebody else rather than ourselves.

This situation occurs frequently with women who have been convinced by feminists that men and women are unisex creatures, and that men are abusing women. When a feminist fails at something, she is likely to assume that her failure is due to discrimination or sexism.

If a person were to have a more realistic view of his abilities and the abilities of other people, then when he fails at something, he would be more likely to analyze his failure rather than whine about being abused.

Donald Trump has a very attractive daughter, and he has made such remarks as, "If she weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd date her". The model Christie Brinkley, and other people who are afraid that Trump will become president, have used his remarks to imply that he is disgusting or perverted, but is it abnormal for a father to regard his daughter as attractive? I think it would be more abnormal if a father who had an attractive daughter did not realize she was attractive.

Men are attracted to women because of a circuit in our brain, not because of the environment. There is some section of our brain that responds to certain visual images, and that section does not have any understanding or concern for who a woman is related to. If a woman has a particular visual appearance, she will stimulate that circuitry, regardless of whether she is our daughter or a stranger.

Evolution works best when there is lots of genetic variety, and so the animals, plants, and humans that have been the most successful are those that do something to increase genetic diversity. For example, with some flowers, the pollen develops before the eggs, thereby increasing the chances that eggs are fertilized with pollen from other flowers.

Humans will create more genetic diversity when incest is kept at low levels, but our emotions have no intelligence, so there is no way for our emotions to identify how genetically similar we are to potential spouses. So how can nature inspire brothers and sisters to look for a spouse outside of their family? How can nature discourage fathers and daughters from reproducing with one another?

There may be several characteristics that are reducing incest. One is that we will know our siblings much more intimately than we know other people, even during prehistoric times when everybody was growing up in the same campsite in very close proximity to one another. More importantly, siblings will have some unpleasant memories of one another, such as arguing with one another, whereas they will not have so many unpleasant memories of other people. Therefore, some of the people that they don't know very well will appear to be better people simply because of the lack of unpleasant memories.

Another reason that we may have a tendency to avoid incest is because we seem to have a characteristic of not being satisfied with what we have, and always looking for something better. People have different expressions to explain this characteristic, such as "the grass is greener on the other side of the fence", and we "take things for granted", and we "don't appreciate what we have until we lose it".

This is a genetic characteristic, not an environmental characteristic. This characteristic caused our prehistoric ancestors to assume that there are better hunting grounds, better ways to make tools, and better sources of water. This characteristic could be described as a "defect" because it causes a person to be unhappy with his life, but from the point of view of evolution, it has the advantage of inspiring him to do something to make his life better.

We are never satisfied with what we have. We want something better. No matter how high up we are in the social hierarchy, we want to become higher. No matter how much material wealth we have, it's never enough. No matter how big our house is, it is not big enough. No matter how much fame we have, we are not famous enough.

We need to understand this characteristic and keep it under control or we will cause ourselves a lot of unnecessary aggravation and misery, and ruin our relationships.

This characteristic might help reduce incest by causing men to assume that "the women on the other side of the fence are more desirable".

There is no answer book to life to let us know what the truth is about human behavior, so how can we determine if my views of human behavior are more accurate than yours or somebody else's?

If our view of human behavior is inaccurate, we will create an unpleasant social environment for ourselves, and that will result in bizarre behavior. We will know when our view of ourselves becomes more accurate when we find that our social problems are decreasing, and our lives are becoming more pleasant.

This concept is most obvious with animals in a zoo. When we provide a particular species of animals with the wrong environment, it displays abnormal behavior, but when we give them an appropriate environment, they form more stable relationships, remain healthier, live longer, and are more relaxed.

This concept applies to individuals as well as societies. As you develop a more accurate view of yourself, your life will become more satisfying. By comparison, when you follow an inaccurate philosophy, you will be trying to force a square peg into a round hole, and that will cause you to experience more frustration and failures.

In order to provide ourselves with a better life, we must understand ourselves, and we need to design a government system, economic system, social affairs, and other culture according to those characteristics. We cannot design a society according to what we want to believe we are.

Another example of why we need to understand ourselves is the issue of extramarital affairs. As with pedophilia, we have a tendency to condemn people who do this, but it would make more sense to try to understand why it is happening, and then find a sensible way of dealing with it.

There is not much information about this issue because nobody has put much effort into studying it, but based on my casual observations of life, there seem to be different reasons for these affairs. The most common reason seems to be when a marriage is failing, in which case one or both partners start losing interest in their spouse and starts looking for somebody else. These people start the process of finding a new spouse while they are married rather than getting divorced first.

Our economic system is one reason that people will look for a new spouse while they are married. Specifically, a woman who does not have much of an income will not want to get divorced and then look for a husband. She would rather go from one husband to another husband. Therefore, we could reduce that type of extramarital affair simply by switching to the type of economic system that I have suggested in which everybody is provided with their basic necessities.

As long as we have an economic system in which people have to compete with one another for food and basic necessities, we are going to encourage miserable relationships because that type of economic system encourages women to get involved with men for financial purposes. It also causes divorced couples to argue about how to divide their possessions, and whether one of them should pay alimony or child support.

By switching to the economic system I've described, couples have no possessions to fight over, and we also eliminate the need for child support and alimony. This eliminates the need for women to get married for financial reasons. This will encourage more relationships that are based on compatibility rather than money. This in turn is likely to result in marriages that are more stable.

When a marriage is failing, the couple would be able to get divorced without fear of homelessness or fights of how to divide possessions, and so there will be a greater chance that unhappy couples will get divorced rather than remain married and have affairs.

Although there are lots of other reasons people might have affairs, there is one other that I wanted to mention. There seem to be some couples who are satisfied with one another, but who might have a discreet affair once or twice during their life, and for no apparent reason other than pleasure. I wonder if it is because we have a genetic tendency to do this.

The reason it could be natural for us to have extramarital affairs is because during prehistoric times, if a man or woman would occasionally get the urge to have an affair, they would increase genetic diversity in the tribe.

If a prehistoric tribe was having so many affairs that it was causing fights, broken relationships, and murders, then those tribes would have been at a disadvantage, but if some members of a tribe only occasionally developed the urge to have a discreet affair, they would have had an advantage over the tribes that were monogamous.

If we have a genetic tendency to have affairs, we have to make a decision about whether we want to continue this, or if we want to breed it out of us. In the meantime, it would be silly to regard the people who do it as evil. We should instead make intelligent decisions about what to do.

When our prehistoric ancestors were ignorant about where babies came from, an extramarital affair would not have caused much disruption in a relationship because the people would not always have sensed that one of their children had a different father. Now that we are aware of where children come from, and we are also aware of venereal diseases, extramarital affairs can cause a lot of trouble in a relationship.

However, if we are aware of the possibility that we have a natural craving for such affairs, then when we start developing such a craving, we will have an easier time using some self-control to ignore it, or we may find a way to satisfy the craving without causing so much trouble, such as by flirting with other people without letting the flirting go too far.

By comparison, when we are ignorant about our emotional cravings, then when we develop a craving for an affair, we might foolishly set up a feedback loop in which we tell ourselves over and over that we are miserable, and that we need an affair to enjoy life. By convincing ourselves that we are miserable, we can interfere with the relationship with our spouse, and we might also convince ourselves to have an affair, which can cause more trouble.

Some men and women have gone even further and interpreted their craving for an affair as a sign that they are in a miserable relationship, and that the person that they want to have an affair with is their ideal spouse, and so they abandoned their spouse to be with that perfect person. After a few days the craving for the affair diminished, and they came to the conclusion that they had made a mistake, and they wanted to go back to their spouse.

If we regard ourselves as a creation of a loving God, then the people who have extramarital affairs will be regarded as evil rather than lacking self-control, and our solution to the problem will be unrealistic, such as punishing them. However, if we regard ourselves as monkeys, and if we start understanding our emotional cravings, then we will be able to understand why people do what they do, and we can make intelligent decisions on how to deal with our emotional cravings.

Animals and humans do not develop the "ideal" qualities. Rather, we develop whatever qualities allow us to survive the battle for life. This has resulted in humans developing qualities that were acceptable during prehistoric times, but which are causing trouble for us today. We need to understand and admit to our animal-like qualities so that we can make intelligent decisions about how to deal with our cravings.

Denying the truth about ourselves is going to create problems for us. We are not going to create a pleasant social environment when we ridicule men as "perverts" when they admit that they are attracted to teenage girls, or when we regard people as "evil" when they have extramarital affairs. We need to understand what we are, and we need to design society accordingly. Unfortunately, we don't like reality. Our natural tendency is to believe whatever is most pleasing to us.

Our societies today are following the false philosophy that teenagers are sexually attracted to teenagers, adults are attracted to adults, and elderly people are attracted to elderly people. Unfortunately, this is a false philosophy, and it is creating problems for us because it puts pressure on people to lie about their true feelings, and it causes us to condemn people for being honest. Donald Trump is not a pervert for recognizing that his daughter is attractive, for example. He is simply stating the truth.

It makes no sense for a male animal to be attracted to older females. The competition for life will always favor the males who are attracted to females who have just reached sexual maturity. It is idiotic for a male animal to be attracted to elderly females, or for a bee or butterfly to be attracted to elderly flowers.

Humans are supposed to form relationships during our late teenage years. We are not supposed to remain single throughout our 20s or 30s, and we are not supposed to be starting a family at age 40.

The reason there are so many people over the age of 20 who are still single is because we have inadvertently created a neurotic, unnatural, miserable social environment for ourselves. Boys and girls are being raised in an environment in which they pick up idiotic and conflicting bits of information about life, marriage, money, jobs, feminism, and other issues. They become teenagers who waste their youth in a state of confusion, frustration, and awkwardness. Many of them become adults who are lonely and wondering what to do with their life.

In order to improve this situation, we need to experiment with our social environment so that by the time a child becomes a teenager, he has a more realistic view of life, and he can enjoy being a teenager. Our teenage years are an exciting time in life. It is a transition that is full of mysteries and interesting feelings. The teenagers should enjoy flirting, and they should get to know a lot of people. They should start forming long-term friendships. Most people should find a spouse before they are 25 years old.

The adults should also help teenagers prepare for jobs. Teenagers were not designed to deal with a modern economic system. It is ridiculous to expect teenagers to make wise decisions about jobs. They don't know enough about the economic system to know what jobs will be available in the future, and they cannot be expected to have a good understanding of their abilities and desires.

The schools should be responsible for helping students find jobs. The schools should work with the businesses so that the teachers know what type of jobs are available, and what will be available in the near future. The schools need to put the students through various activities to help the students figure out what type of jobs they have the ability to do, and what jobs they enjoy doing.

By making schools responsible for helping students find jobs, and by holding schools partly responsible for the success of their marriages and friendships, then the school officials will be judged according to their ability to prepare children for society, as opposed to what we have today, in which schools pander to students and parents.

During prehistoric times, parents did not have to do much to educate their children. The sons would mimic their fathers, and the daughters would mimic their mothers. Today, however, we need schools to provide children with an education, and to help them figure out what type of job to pursue. Schools should not be business ventures or entertainment centers. Schools should be an "auxiliary parent". Schools should be preparing children for life.

It is also important to note that a normal man is repelled by babies. We do not like the way babies look, sound, smell, or behave. We don't like childbirth, either, or the mess created by childbirth. Men are more tolerant of children, but we do not want to be around children for long periods of time.

The feminists are pushing for men to show an interest in babies and children, such as being with their wife when she gives birth, but this is equivalent to men pushing women into having the same interest in sex that men have. Men and women need to accept the fact that we are different from one another, and we need to learn to deal with our differences.

Unfortunately, a lot of women do not want to admit that men and women are different. They are putting pressure on men to act like women. For example, a woman took her son to a hospital when he was having problems with asthma, and she fell asleep in the room. When she woke up, she discovered her husband had arrived and was sleeping underneath her son's crib. She took a photo of it and posted on Facebook, describing him as "father of the year".

During prehistoric times, if a man had a craving to spend his time with babies or sick children, he would risk the life of his family. Prehistoric fathers had to spend their time making tools and looking for food, and the prehistoric women took care of children. We evolved for different roles in life.

When a woman boasts that her husband slept in the hospital because their child had a problem with asthma, or when a woman boasts that her husband held her hand while she was giving birth, they are encouraging men to behave like women.

There is nothing wrong with breeding humans so that men become more like women, but will that really improve life for us? I don't think so, and the reason is because it is becoming increasingly easy to raise children.

During prehistoric times, it was necessary for a woman to devote her life to taking care of her children, but in this modern world, it is so easy to raise children that mothers do not have to spend so much time with children and babies, and we certainly don't need both a mother and father to spend a lot of time with children.

Technology is making it increasingly easy for us to raise children, so instead of breeding men to become more like women, it would make more sense to breed women so that they develop other interests in life. Women need to do more than clean a house and take care of children, especially if we switch to the economic system I suggest in which everybody gets the basic necessities for free, and we switch to living in apartment complexes that provide women with easy access to free daycare centers and restaurants, and that provide the children with easy access to other children, schools, and recreational areas.

Although normal men are sexually attracted to teenage girls, we are not sexually attracted to children, and we are repelled by babies. So how do we explain the men who are interested in sexual relationships with babies or children? And how do we explain the men who are sexually attracted to young boys?

If we were to study the pedophiles from the point of view that they are humans like the rest of us rather than monsters, we might notice some patterns, such as certain types of mental disorders or personality characteristics, but nobody has done any serious analysis of pedophiles, so there is no data for us to analyze. Most of us have never known a pedophile, or we know of only one, so we cannot use our personal experiences to help us understand them. Our main source of data are news reports that give simplistic and biased descriptions of pedophiles. Despite this lack of data, I can think of two ways of explaining pedophiles.

1) Some pedophiles may not be true pedophiles

In a previous document, I mentioned that I suspect a lot of the people who describe themselves as "homosexuals" are not true homosexuals. Rather, they are lonely heterosexuals. Due to some type of mental illness, abnormal childhood environment, or bizarre personality, they had trouble forming a relationship with a woman, and they have turned to other men in desperation.

It is very common for us to take whatever we can get when we cannot get what we want. We refer to this as "taking the lesser of the evils". An animal's attitude is to satisfy its emotions, and if it cannot do exactly what it wants, it will sometimes do something similar in order to appease those emotions.

Perhaps the easiest example to understand are the people who form abnormally close relationships with dogs, especially the people who have sex with a dog. None of those people are truly attracted to dogs. All of them prefer people for both friends and sex partners. However, they have had so many problems with people and are so lonely that they are turning to another species to fulfill their needs for friendship or sex.

A lifelike baby doll.

There are also women who are forming abnormally close relationships with dolls in order to satisfy their cravings for babies. They do not truly have an attraction to dolls; they have an attraction to human babies. That's why some of the dolls are so lifelike.

Some of the pedophiles may be similar to the people who have sex with dogs or who have lifelike dolls. Specifically, they may have trouble forming relationships with adults and feel more comfortable around children. Michael Jackson, for example, seemed to feel more comfortable around children, perhaps because the adults that he came into contact with were trying to use and abuse him.

2) Some pedophiles may have excessive female qualities

Women have such an extreme attraction to children that they have a difficult time resisting the urge to grab at children, kiss them, and hug them. These cravings are genetic, not environmental. Therefore, there are genes in the human gene pool that create a craving to hug, kiss, and grab at babies and young children. If you agree with me that there is only one blueprint for a human, then these genes are in male humans, also, but they should be subdued in men, and/or overpowered by a repulsion of babies and children.

Since each of us is a unique jumble of genes, men are going to differ in our attraction to children, our repulsion of children, and our self-control. If we could measure a man's craving to grab at children, we would create a bell curve. The men who have strong cravings to touch children might become pedophiles if they don't have enough self-control to resist their cravings. If they also have a woman's sexual attraction to men, they might prefer boys rather than girls.

We currently regard men as being in one of two distinct category; namely, the pedophiles and the non-pedophiles. If we could measure a man's attraction to children, we would find that it creates a bell curve. There may be a lot of men who would be pedophiles if they had a bit less self-control. When those men are around children, they have to struggle with themselves to keep their hands off of the children. We do not regard those men as pedophiles because they are controlling their urges, but they are not the same as the men who do not have to resist such urges.

A man should have a repulsion for children that is strong enough to oppose his attraction to children, thereby causing one emotion to provide checks and balances on another. He will be able to be around children without any struggle to control his craving to grab at them. The men whose emotions are not providing appropriate checks and balances on one another will have to struggle with themselves to control their cravings.

This concept applies to all of our other emotional cravings, also. For example, consider the difference in how people react to food. When we have a social event in which there are lots of adults and children, and when everybody is supposed to wait to eat until the food is served to everybody, each person will have a slightly different ability to resist the temptation to eat the food. At one extreme are the people, usually the children, who have the most trouble controlling their cravings to eat, and at the other extreme are the people who show no trouble at all.

If we could see inside the minds of all of the people at the table, we would discover that even though some of the adults are not grabbing at the food, they are not the same inside their minds. We would find that some of them are going through emotional turmoil. We would find that they are frequently looking at the food and telling themselves not to grab at it, and some of them might go so far as to grab their chair in order to keep their hands away from the food. At the other extreme are the people who have so little trouble resisting the food that they are completely relaxed and enjoying a conversation with other people.

If we could look inside their minds to see their sexual feelings, we would find the same situation is occurring. Some of the men would be struggling to resist their temptation to touch the women, and some men would be struggling to resist the temptation to touch the children. Other men would be able to resist the craving without any trouble.

When we look at a group of people with our eyes, it might appear to us that everybody is behaving in the same manner, but if we look inside their minds, we would find that we are not identical. We would find some people are struggling to control themselves. To the people who are struggling, the social events will feel awkward and uncomfortable because they will be unable to relax.

The people who become obese, or who become pedophiles, or who steal items, are not a different species. They are simply people who don't have enough self-control to resist the urge to do what they know they should not do. They can be visualized as crossing a boundary that they were not supposed to cross.

Some of the people who are behaving properly can be visualized as a person who is at the edge of the boundary and struggling with the urge to cross over it. And there are some other people who are a bit farther away from the boundary, but occasionally fantasize about crossing it.

By changing our social environment, we will change who crosses the boundary. For example, if we were raised in an environment in which pedophilia is more tolerated, as in Thailand, then more men would give in to the urge to do it. If we really want to see who among us has these urges, we would have to make it legal.

The idea of making pedophilia legal might seem frightening, but who among us wants to have sex with children? Only some of us do. If we really want to figure out who has a tendency to do something, we have to put people into an environment in which it is acceptable to do it.

This issue is very similar to what I mentioned about medical drugs, marijuana, and other drugs. If we were to legalize all types of drugs, and if the neighborhood markets and Internet stores were selling heroin, insulin, LSD, thyroid hormones, morphine, and cocaine, which of those drugs would you start using?

Making drugs legal does not cause people to use them. Making drugs legal simply provides people who want the drugs to have access to them. If we make drugs legal, the people who are at the edge of the boundary will jump over it and start using the drugs, but the people who never wanted drugs are not going to start using them simply because they have been legalized.

Likewise, if it were legal to have sex with babies, only some men would do it. Making it legal will not cause all of us to do it. Making it legal for men to have sex with babies would cause an increase in the number of men doing it, but the only men who would do it when it becomes legal are those who are at the edge of the boundary and who have been struggling to resist the urge to grab at babies. If it were legal, they would stop struggling with themselves and do what they want to do. The rest of us are not sexually aroused by babies, so it does not matter to us if it is legal or illegal.

If we really want to find out who among us wants to have sex with babies, we have to make it legal and acceptable.

We are currently trying to use laws to control human behavior. We need laws, but laws are useful only to organize and coordinate us. We cannot use laws to control our emotional cravings, change our intellectual abilities, or alter our personalities. Laws cannot stop us from doing what we want to do.

Laws cannot make an alligator behave like a dog, or make a monkey behave like a human. Laws are not going to stop burglary, pedophilia, heroin addiction, or murder. The only way to stop undesirable behavior is to control reproduction so that each generation is naturally better behaved.

What we describe as our "personality" is our set of emotional cravings and intellectual abilities. Once you realize that nothing in the environment can change the way our emotions operate, you should be able to realize that the environment cannot alter our personality. The environment can only affect what we learn about life, such as our clothing styles, religion, government, language, and other information that we pick up from other people.

The manner in which we interpret laws, and our willingness to follow laws, depend upon our personality. A sign that prohibits swimming cannot stop people from going into the water if they want to. A warning sign is useful only for people who understand that the sign is intended to help us; who are willing to put some effort into decoding the words accurately; and who are willing to follow the rules. Those signs cannot control us.

The same is true of laws. Laws are useful only for people who are willing to understand and follow them. Laws cannot control people. A law against obesity is not going to stop people from overeating. A law against pedophilia will not stop that crime, either. A law against being stupid is not going to stop stupidity.

Everybody is willing to follow laws that we agree with, but we need a certain amount of self-control in order to follow a law that we do not approve of. If we do not have enough self-control, we may interpret a law in a manner that lets us do whatever we please.

When a person says that he is "wading" in a lake that prohibits "swimming", he is doing what we refer to as "finding a loophole". He is trying to find a way to interpret a sequence of words in such a manner that he can justify disregarding the concept that the author was trying to convey to us.

Many businesses hire lawyers to analyze laws and look for ways to interpret the words in a manner that the business can benefit from. These businesses are using lawyers to circumvent laws, not to understand or improve laws.

Lawyers have discovered lots of different ways of interpreting tax laws that allow them to avoid taxes, but those lawyers and business executives are not criticized for being selfish, immoral, or criminal. Instead, most people would describe them as being "clever" for "finding a loophole" in the law. Our society regards finding a loophole in a law to be almost the same as finding a piece of gold in a creek.

If a lawyer were to find a loophole in our laws against rape or arson, would you describe that lawyer as being clever? The reason we consider people to be clever when they find loopholes in tax laws is because we don't like following tax laws. However, when we promote the concept that laws have loopholes, and that people are clever when they find loopholes, we encourage people to look for loopholes rather than obey laws or try to improve them.

Furthermore, promoting the concept of loopholes makes our legal system unnecessarily complicated and idiotic because the government will respond by trying to "plug the loophole". Unfortunately, laws are not physical containers that have cracks that can be plugged. Laws are just sequences of words, and our languages are so imperfect that no matter how we write a law, somebody might be able to figure out a way to interpret the words in a manner that allows him to circumvent the concept that the words are encoding.

This creates an endless cycle in which a person discovers a loophole in a particular law, and the government reacts by creating another law to stop that particular loophole, and then somebody discovers another loophole, and so on. We are not solving the problem of loopholes when we react by trying to plug the loophole. We are actually making our situation worse by making our laws unnecessarily complicated, and by rewarding businesses that find loopholes.

Our tax laws have become so complicated as a result of businesses and wealthy people who have found loopholes that filling out a tax form is like playing a game of chess. In a free enterprise system, the only concern is money, so a business would be foolish not to analyze the tax laws and take advantage of them.

Mark Cuban recently criticized Donald Trump for finding ways to reduce his taxes, but Cuban does this also, and so does almost every business and wealthy citizen. Who among us is not looking for opportunities to reduce our taxes?

Cuban also boasted that he "gives back" to the community, such as when he gave $1 million to the Dallas Police Department to protect homosexuals, but do homosexuals in Dallas really need extra police protection? Is Cuban really "giving back" something of value? I don't think he is helping us. I think he is doing his usual of helping his Jewish friends insult Trump, and promote homosexuals.

Our tax laws are complicated, and rather than continue to add to the problem, it would be better for us to change our attitudes towards "loopholes". A person who finds a loophole should not be regarded as "clever". Rather, finding a loophole should be the same as finding a "mistake".

For example, imagine that on a hot summer day you open the front door to your house in the evening to let some cool air inside, and you forget to close the door when you go to sleep at night. Animals would take advantage of that type of mistake by walking into your home and eating whatever attracted their attention, but if a human were to do so, would you describe him as being "clever"? Would you describe him as "finding a loophole"?

People who take advantage of mistakes are behaving like animals who steal items from your house because you forgot to shut the door. This should not be regarded as clever behavior. This should be regarded as crude, selfish, irresponsible, inconsiderate, animal behavior.

During the past few centuries, businesses have repeatedly discovered ways to disregard laws, and the government repeatedly responded by adding new laws. It would be much more sensible to face the fact that our languages are crude, and that it is impossible for us to create a law or document that can convey a complex concept with 100 percent accuracy.

We must accept the fact that all of our documents have mistakes, imperfections, limitations, and confusion. We must tell the citizens that they have a responsibility to interpret laws properly. When people have a question about a law, instead of doing what they please, they should ask the government for advice on what to do.

Example: how should we regulate drones?

Another example of why we need to change our attitude towards laws and language is the issue of drones. Individual citizens and businesses began using drones before the government had created laws to regulate drones. Eventually some of the drone operators began using drones in a manner that irritated other people, resulting in complaints to the police that some of the drone operators were irresponsible and obnoxious.

At that point in time, the drone operators could do anything they pleased with drones and justify it by claiming that there were no laws regulating drones. The drone operators knew that there were laws regulating aircraft, but they did not want to follow those laws.

For example, there are laws that specify airplanes remain a certain distance away from homes, buildings, electric power lines, and flightpaths. The drone operators knew that even though the law does not use the word "drone", they have a responsibility to understand the concept of that law, which is to protect the buildings, power lines, people, and other aircraft. However, some of the drone operators did not want to be responsible. They preferred to interpret the laws in the manner that allowed them to do as they pleased.

If the drone operators had followed the aircraft laws, then they would have flown their drones only in areas that were away from the aircraft flight paths, power lines, and other structures, and which provided enough space for the drones to operate without annoying other people.

However, many of the drone operators did not want to travel to an isolated area in order to use their drones. They wanted to use their drones within crowded neighborhoods, in the middle of cities, along roads with automobiles and bicycle riders, at schools, near airports, and in tourist areas. Some of them were as obnoxious as the people who ride skateboards on public sidewalks and handrails.

When there is no law against something, many citizens will do it even when they realize that they should not do it, and they will justify their selfish behavior by pointing out that there was no law against it.

In July 2015, a man in Kentucky was flying a drone in his neighborhood. One of his neighbors, William Merideth, considered the drone to be invading his privacy. Merideth fired three rounds of birdshot at it with a shotgun, destroying the drone. It was not the first time that somebody had fired a gun at a drone.

Should people be allowed to fly drones at their homes? If so, unless they have a very large yard, the drone will be within visual and auditory distance of the neighbors, and that can cause the neighbors to complain.

The people who use guns, slingshots, or other devices to knock down drones bring up another issue that we have to deal with. Specifically, do people have a right to attack drones? The man who fired three rounds of birdshot sent hundreds of particles of lead into the air, and the people who fire bullets at drones are sending heavier, even more dangerous projectiles into the air. Do people have the right to use guns or other devices to destroy drones?

When this case went to court, the judge said: "He had a right to shoot at this drone". If I had been a judge in that case, I would have said that the people who fire guns at drones, or who fire guns into the air during parties or celebrations, are more of a danger to society than the people who are flying drones. People who shoot guns into the air are showing signs that they cannot even think well enough to realize that the bullets are going to fall down somewhere, or perhaps they don't care where the bullets fall down.

The people who are purchasing drones have enough intelligence to realize that they have a responsibility to use drones in a manner that is not going to irritate other people, get near electric power lines, or be sucked into the engines of commercial aircraft. Unfortunately, our natural tendency is to do what we please. When there are no laws restricting the use of drones, our emotions want to believe that we can do whatever we want; that everything is legal. The people who don't have much self-control will use the lack of laws as justification for being obnoxious and irresponsible.

To add to this problem, people, especially men, have a strong desire to compete with one another, and this will cause men to get into competitions with their drones. For example, when a man produces some interesting photos with his drone, other men will be stimulated into competing with him by producing photos that are more spectacular. This can escalate to the point at which the men are using their drones in a manner that irritates other people, or is dangerous.

Furthermore, when our courts tell people that they have a right to shoot at drones, the courts will encourage people to shoot at drones, and this will eventually lead to those people getting into competitions with each other. William Merideth, for example, described himself as a "drone slayer". He will stimulate other people into becoming drone slayers, and to boast about shooting down more drones than Merideth, or more expensive drones, or drones that were higher in the air, or drones that were more maneuverable and therefore, more difficult to hit. This could result in lots of bullets flying through the air and landing in our homes, schools, and markets.

The issue of drones delivering packages complicates this issue. When people see a drone carrying a package, how can they be sure that it is a legitimate package delivery service rather than a criminal who is delivering guns, poisons, or bombs? A drone could also be carrying a gun or poison to kill a person or a neighbor's dog.

Arsonists will be able to use drones to set fires. People could also use them to drop fleas, ticks, and rats into the yards of people they don't like. When the drones fly at night, they will be difficult to see. Are we going to have restrictions on flying drones at night?

And how do we know whether a drone is delivering a package, or stealing something from somebody's yard? When the drones become more powerful, they will allow people to kidnap children from their backyard, schools, and playgrounds.

Crime gangs will eventually be able to use drones for painting their logos on the areas of buildings and bridges that they cannot reach. They will also be able to use the drones in fights with other gangs, and to assist them in their crimes. People who don't like the neighbor's Christmas decorations will be able to use drones to destroy them.

When a drone is carrying a package, people will suspect that it might be a package delivery service, but once it drops the package, it will appear to be just another drone flying through the neighborhood. Will our judges give people the right to shoot at those drones on the grounds that they did not realize it was a package delivery service?

As our technology improves, we inadvertently increase the number of opportunities that criminals have to cheat and abuse us. If we don't start doing something to reduce crime, we are going to make our situation worse by providing criminals of the future with more methods of committing crimes.

In other documents, I mentioned that we must exert some self-control so that we don't get involved with competitions that are idiotic or destructive. Although I've mentioned this before, it is an issue that everybody, especially men, need to remind themselves of regularly because we have such a strong craving to compete.

Another example of this problem occurred recently when two paramedics got carried away in a competitive battle to take the most interesting photos of patients in their ambulance. The competition started out like most competitions; namely, as harmless entertainment. One of them took a photo of themselves in the ambulance while they were transporting a patient, and they sent the photo to the other person. The other person was inspired to take a photo. This activity soon escalated into a contest to see who could create the most interesting photo or video.

Because of our craving to win contests, each of them would go further each time in an attempt to come up with a more interesting photo or video. Eventually the man did something that most people would describe as going too far; namely, he held open the eyes of sedated patient while he took a photo. At that point he was no longer simply "taking photos"; he was using other people to help him win a silly contest. Although he did not hurt that person, if the police had not stopped the competition, it is likely that the competition would have continue to evolve, possibly getting to the point at which they started doing truly obnoxious or dangerous things with their patients.

Those two paramedics are an example of how we need checks and balances on our activities; of why we must frequently watch ourselves to make sure that we are not acting like stupid monkeys. Those two paramedics are another example of how our insatiable craving to impress other people and win competitions can cause "harmless entertainment" to evolve into a contest that becomes irritating, wasteful, or destructive.

Businesses and militaries put a lot of restrictions on what their members can do, and many of those members complain that the restrictions are excessive. However, many of those restrictions were created after people got carried away. For example, some businesses and militaries prohibit cell phones in certain areas, and some people complain that there is no harm in people using cell phones in those areas, but the reason these rules were created is usually because somebody got carried away and caused trouble.

We have to put restrictions on activities while they are still harmless, rather than wait for them to escalate to the point of causing trouble. This creates a problem that we have to learn to live with. Specifically, we have to follow laws that are not actually "needed", but which we follow because we don't want people getting carried away.

For example, because of those two paramedics, it is likely that all paramedics in the future will be told that they are not allowed to take photos of themselves or other people inside the ambulances. That rule will seem idiotic to people who don't know the story about those two paramedics.

Furthermore, there might be some situations in which people benefit when paramedics take photos or videos of their patient, such as to provide doctors or the police with evidence of what happened on the trip to the hospital. This brings up another dilemma that we have to deal with; namely, that there are occasionally situations in which it is more beneficial to violate a law than to follow it.

We can understand some laws without an explanation, such as laws that prohibit arson, but there are other laws that do not make sense to us and appear to be completely arbitrary. A law that prohibits people from taking photos is an example.

Years ago when I was visiting Germany I went into a food market with a video camera, and I began recording video in a section of the supermarket where there weren't any people. I assumed nobody would be bothered by my video camera since nobody was in the area, but an employee soon noticed me and rushed over to tell me that I am not allowed to take photos inside the store even though I was not bothering anybody. Why was I not allowed to take photos? I don't think the employee knew why not, and I could not understand why not.

Today there are so many people with cell phones and video cameras that I can understand why some businesses don't want customers taking photos and videos inside their buildings. The reason is because some of the people who do this are irritating and obnoxious. The stores who cater to tourists are likely to allow photography in their store because they get tired of arguing with tourists, but the other stores are likely to prohibit photography.

If retail stores allowed photography, then eventually somebody would bring a drone into a retail store and fly it around to get video from up in the air. That would lead to other people bringing their drones into the store, and that could lead to drones all over the place at shopping malls and markets. That could even lead to people flying drones inside of aircraft, or inside a city bus, or inside of a hospital.

Our prehistoric ancestors could do anything they pleased, but as society becomes more complicated, and as technology increases, we need more laws, and many of the laws will seem senseless if we don't understand the purpose for them. Ideally, our government would maintain a database that lists all of the laws, with an explanation for each of them. This would allow us to learn why each law was created, and what its purpose is.

However, even when we understand why we are not allowed to take photos inside ambulances or retail stores, our emotions will continue to resist those laws. We will think to ourselves, "OK, the law is intended to stop people from getting carried away, but I'm not going to get carried away. So the law should not apply to me!"

One of the problems with modern society is that we must follow laws even when we don't feel as if they should apply to us. We have to realize that we are monkeys, and that once we allow one person to do something, other people will mimic him, or they will compete with him, which can lead to people becoming irritating or dangerous.

The police arrested those two paramedics who were taking photos of people in their ambulance, and they were facing up to five years in prison. They may not go to prison, but the point I want to bring to your attention is that:

1) They were arrested.
2) They were facing up to five years in prison.

Compare the crime that those two paramedics committed to the crimes that other people are committing. I would say that their crime was among the most insignificant of crimes, yet they got into more trouble than people committing much worse crimes. For example, Michelle Fields filed a false police report against Corey Lewandowski, but she was not even arrested, let alone facing 5 years in prison.

Or compare it to the Hollywood actor, Brian Peck, who was put in jail for 16 months for sexually abusing a child. Other people in Hollywood are suspected of pedophilia, but they don't even get arrested.

Why do the police arrest paramedics who take photos of people in an ambulance, but not arrest journalists who file false police reports? The reason is because we are following our emotions when we create laws. Most people's emotions are more upset at the thought of a paramedic taking a photo of them while they are in an ambulance than they are at the thought of a dishonest journalist who is trying to trick the police into arresting somebody.

There seem to be three reasons why we are more upset with paramedics who take photos of us than with journalists who lie:

1) The dishonest journalists do not directly affect our lives, and most of us have no contact with journalists, whereas all of us are potential candidates for a ride in an ambulance. Therefore, we will create an animated image in our mind of paramedics taking photos of us in an ambulance, and giggling at the photos. This will be emotionally upsetting because we are in that animated image. By comparison, when we visualize a dishonest journalist, we are not a part of the animation.

2) Animals, other than skunks and the top carnivores, have a natural fear of being observed. When we see a pair of eyes staring at us, our fear emotion is triggered and we become very alert to danger. We do not feel comfortable when somebody is watching us. We do not even like the idea of people watching us with security cameras. When we see a security camera, our mind visualizes somebody watching us, and that will trigger our fear of being watched. In order to relax around security cameras, we have to remind ourselves that the person who is watching us is trying to stop crime, not hurt us.

3) We have a strong craving to impress other people, but no craving to be honest about ourselves. The thought of somebody taking a photo of us when we are in an ambulance is upsetting for the same reason that we would be terrified if somebody took a picture of us immediately after we got out of bed. Specifically, we want to impress people, not let them know the truth about us. We want all of the photos of us to make us look good. We want to destroy the photos that we regard as unflattering. We want to create a biased view of ourselves, not an honest view.

We are more upset at the thought of a paramedic taking an unflattering photo of us than we are about journalists who who lie, but paramedics who take photos are causing less trouble for society than the dishonest journalists, especially when the paramedics keep the photos to themselves rather than post them on the Internet. The people who cheat us in financial markets are also causing a lot more trouble than paramedics who take photos of us, but their crime is too intangible for most people to understand. We should design laws according to what is best for society, not according to which crimes are the most emotionally stimulating.

A government cannot predict what type of technology is going to be created, so new products will always be created before there are laws to regulate them. Therefore, a nation should promote the attitude that everybody has a responsibility to interpret the existing laws to handle new technology, and if we have a question, we should send it to the government for clarification.

When laser pointers first became available to consumers, some people pointed them at aircraft at night to interfere with the pilot's vision. Children regarded the laser pointers as toys, and they considered it to be amusing to point the lasers at people and pet cats.

Arizona created a law that prohibited people from aiming a laser pointer at a police officer, and in 2014, they added an amendment to include aiming the laser at an aircraft. Are they going to add more amendments, such as prohibiting people from aiming lasers at UPS delivery drivers, firemen, and school bus drivers?

The government should stop promoting the attitude that a law should list every possible scenario. If we continue with this attitude of trying to close loopholes, we are going to end up with laws that are like this:

It is against the law to aim a laser pointer at police officers, pilots of aircraft, UPS drivers, firemen, school bus drivers, postal workers, teachers and classrooms, dentists, doctors, priests, the Pope, the Hollywood celebrities who are walking down the red carpet, and animals at the zoo. Furthermore, spectators of an athletic event are prohibited from aiming the lasers at the opponents team members, coaches, cheerleaders, and fans. The spectators of music concerts are prohibited from aiming lasers at the musicians, other audience members, and the person singing. It is also illegal for people to aim laser pointers at bank tellers and other employees of a bank, and the cashiers of retail stores. It is also illegal to aim lasers at butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers.

It would make more sense to tell every citizen that they have a responsibility to figure out for themselves what type of behavior is acceptable, and what is not acceptable. People who lack the ability to make wise decisions need to be put on restrictions, or evicted. We should stop regarding them as clever people who have found a loophole.

If powerful lasers ever become small enough and inexpensive enough to become weapons for individual citizens, we will once again have this problem of technology that exists before there are laws to regulate it. People will justify doing whatever they please with laser weapons on the grounds that the Second Amendment gives them the right to own weapons, and there are no restrictions on what we can do with lasers weapons.

Is there any law prohibiting us from putting laser weapons on drones? And even if there was such a law, how many criminals and crime networks would obey it?

This problem will also occur as soon as businesses begin to produce robots. There might be such ridiculous situations as people using robots to commit crimes, and justify it by claiming that it is legal because there are no laws prohibiting what the robot did.

Does every citizen have the right to own robots? Or should we require people to get licenses to own robots? Should people register their robots? Or will citizens form a National Robot Association that whines about the government trying to regulate robots? Will famous actors make defiant statements, such as, "You will get my robot when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!"?

Should people have to pass some type of tests to ensure that they know how to operate robots properly? Should we prohibit children from having access to robots? Should robots be designed to recognize children, regard them as mentally incompetent, and ignore their requests? Should robots also ignore the requests of retarded people, senile people, idiots, or people who don't have a license to operate robots?

And consider the issues that sex robots will create. For example, if a person rents his sex robot to other people, is he guilty of prostitution? Or is having sex with a robot just a form of masturbation? Can a person open a business in a shopping mall in which customers pay a fee to use a sex robot in a private room? Can people create sex robots that resemble little children, or will that be considered a type of pedophilia?

Can somebody design a sex robot that looks like somebody in particular, such as Queen Elizabeth or Lady Gaga? Or do businesses have to get permission or pay a fee in order to do that? What if the businesses that offered the Queen Elizabeth robots were advertising them for S&M activities?

There are a lot of people who like shooting guns at targets, and playing with paintball guns. Somebody might eventually develop robots that people can shoot at. Will businesses be able to offer robots that resemble particular people and allow people to kill them? Or will that be considered some type of murder?

Robots are going to create a lot of situations that we have no laws for. We can create some laws for robots before we start manufacturing robots, but history shows us that nobody has been able to accurately predict how technology will be used. Therefore, we should assume that robots are going to create situations that nobody anticipated, and which there are no laws about.

If we focus on the concept that a law represents, then it will not matter whether a law specifically addresses a particular issue with drones, lasers, or robots. With that philosophy, every citizen has the responsibility to understand the concept of each law, and apply that concept to his particular situation. The citizens who lack the ability to make sensible decisions should be put on restrictions, or evicted, on the grounds that they are too inept to deal with modern society.

When we encounter a situation that we are not sure of, we should send our questions to the government. Of course, this requires a government that responds to such questions, and in an intelligent manner. Most businesses provide us with phone numbers and email addresses of their customer service department, and they tend to respond quickly, but no nation yet has a government that responds to questions or complaints as well as a business.

Actually, there are some questions that not even businesses will give a sensible answers to. Examples are questions related to the 9/11 attack, the Apollo moon landings, and carbon taxes. And the Jews want to make it illegal for us to ask questions about the Holocaust.

We need to make a lot of changes to our nation in order to provide ourselves with a government that gives us honest answers to questions, and which treats us with respect.

In September 2016, Ahmad Rahami was arrested for setting off a bomb in New York City. As with some of the other Muslims who were arrested for terrorism, the FBI had been informed that Rahami was a potential danger to society.

The journalists tell us that the reason the FBI knew that he was dangerous is because the FBI receives lots of information about potentially dangerous people. We are told that once in a while the FBI arrests some terrorists before they conduct an attack, but sometimes the terrorists are successful with their attacks. The journalists create the impression that the FBI is trying their best to protect us.

However, a more likely explanation for why so many of the terrorists are known to the FBI is that the FBI is checking out everybody who gets arrested, and passing judgment on whether any of those criminals will be useful in a false flag operation. When the FBI finds a criminal who is angry at the American government, they may arrange for him to become even more angry by providing him with information about how terrible the government is, and they may provide him with explosives, weapons, and ideas on how to get revenge on this horrible government. After they trick him into setting off a bomb, they will arrest him, often after leaving obvious clues as to his identity, such as carefully placing his passport in a location where it will be quickly discovered.

As to why the FBI sometimes arrests terrorists before they conduct an attack, it could be because that particular group of criminals were too difficult to manipulate, and so the FBI gave up, abandoned their false flag operation, and arrested them.

In September 2016, the FBI announced that they were investigating Brad Pitt's treatment of his children. Although they quickly decided that it would be absurd for them to do so, if they care so much about children, why don't they investigate the accusations that Charlie Sheen and other men in Hollywood have been raping children? And why do they show more interest in investigating Brad Pitt than they show in investigating the accusations that George Soros is funding violent protests?

The relentless attacks on Brad Pitt and certain other famous people by the journalists and FBI seem to be intended to frighten the famous people into submission. The FBI is trying to intimidate the famous people, not investigate crimes.

We are not going to be able to provide ourselves with a government that we can send questions to about laws as long as we continue to tolerate a government that is essentially a giant, Jewish crime network.

Not all people are able to understand the concept of a law and figure out how to apply that concept to their lives. Children, for example, do not have the intelligence or education necessary to do this, and neither do the adults who are retarded, extremely stupid, or senile.

Therefore, in order for an organization, regardless of whether it is a nation, business, or a sports team, to demand that its members follow the concepts of their laws, the management has to pass judgment on which members have the ability to function properly in the team, and which members need to be classified as "inept" and treated differently. We cannot treat all members of an organization equally, or expect all of them to know how to follow the rules. The people who cannot function properly in an organization must have restrictions put on them.

Governments and parents already apply this concept to children. Our government has lots of restrictions on what children can do, such as prohibiting them from driving automobiles, and parents also put restrictions on what their children can do. However, we are not putting many restrictions on the adults who cannot function properly in society.

Until recently, for example, elderly people could drive automobiles even if their mind and body had deteriorated so much that they were unable to pass a driver's test. The United States is now a bit more demanding that elderly people be able to drive automobiles properly, but we are still allowing extremely stupid and senile adults to vote, gamble, purchase alcohol, and donate money to charities and churches.

By allowing the mentally impaired adults to anything they please, we allow them to hurt themselves. Even worse, we allow con-artists to cheat them out of their money, which can cause financial troubles for them and their families, and which provides financial support to criminals, which hurts society.

Parents and governments put restrictions on children in order to protect the children, but we do not want to apply that concept to adults. We prefer to believe that every adult is capable of taking care of himself. In reality, there are many adults who are too stupid to deal with modern society. Also, as we get old, our brain deteriorates, so if we live long enough, we will reach a point of deterioration at which our brain cannot do an adequate job of driving automobiles, flying airplanes, performing dentistry, voting, or spending money.

In order to put restrictions on people, we must design a government that will put people through some type of mental evaluation. Unfortunately, many people are going to lack the self-control necessary to allow the government to classify their parents or friends as mentally incompetent. In order for a society to implement such a policy, we have to provide ourselves with a government that can and will force people to accept this type of policy. Our emotions will not like this policy. This is an example of a policy that we must implement because it makes sense, not because we enjoy it.

A potential problem of allowing a government to pass judgment on who among us is inept is that if we allow the government to become dominated by criminals or mentally defective people, then we have the possibility that they label their critics as inept. In order to protect ourselves from abusive government officials, we must eliminate the secrecy that government officials have. When they classify somebody as inept, they must be required to post documentation on the Internet for everybody to see so that we can pass judgment on whether they are making intelligent decisions.

The idea of allowing government officials to pass judgment on who among us is incompetent might seem bizarre, but it's already happening in the world today. As I have pointed out many times in my documents, I am not suggesting that we do anything that has not already proven to be successful. Rather, I am simply suggesting that we take the concepts that have already been proven to be successful for small organizations, or on a small scale, and apply those successful concepts to an entire society.

For example, governments occasionally take children away from parents that they have classified as "incompetent parents", and when couples get divorced, the courts pass judgment on whether the mother is too incompetent to have custody of her children.

There is nothing wrong with a government passing judgment on who among us is an inept parent, but we should eliminate secrecy so that we can see which government officials make the decisions, and what their reasoning is. We need to be able to give job performance reviews to those officials, and on a regular basis, and we need to replace the officials who do the worst job.

We should go even further and eliminate the secrecy about who is being denied a pilot's licenses, a driver's license, a medical license, a gun, and other privileges. By maintaining a public database of information about everybody's life, we can see who is being denied something, which government official denied it, and why it was denied. This will help us to reduce the chances that dishonest government officials abuse the people they do not like, and it will also allow us to pass judgment on which officials are making the worst decisions.

Businesses regularly pass judgment on the abilities of their employees. For example, when a business needs somebody to drive a forklift, conduct a DNA analysis, or repair an electron microscope, they pass judgment on which of the employees have the qualities necessary to do the job properly. They do not give every employee the right to do whatever they please. Everybody in a business has to earn what they want.

Furthermore, businesses do not assign privileges permanently. There is no such concept as "tenure" among businesses. For example, if an employee is chosen to conduct a DNA analysis, he is not given tenure by the business to conduct the analyses for the rest of his life. If he does not do an adequate job during the following week, he may be removed from that position.

We should apply the same principles to an entire society. Nobody should have the right to drive an automobile; it should be a privilege that people earn. Furthermore, that privilege should not be assigned permanently. When a person gets so old that he cannot drive an automobile properly, his license should be revoked.

Likewise, nobody should have the right to use a drone, robot, laser weapon, audio amplifier, gun, explosives, poisons, or anything else that is potentially dangerous or irritating to other people. People today cannot have the freedom that our primitive ancestors had. People today have a responsibility to be a team member.

We should give everybody the right to have food to eat, water to drink, air to breathe, a home to live in, and other basic necessities, but nobody should have a right to use modern technology, especially not technology that is potentially dangerous or annoying.

Everybody should be told to interpret laws in a sensible manner and behave appropriately. If anybody chooses to behave in an atrocious manner and justify it on the grounds that there was no law prohibiting what they did, the government should respond:

"Since you are too inept to understand the laws of our society, you are going to be put on restrictions. If you continue to cause trouble, you will be restricted to the neighborhoods that have been designated for the mentally incompetent people, and if you continue to cause trouble in that neighborhood, you will be evicted to the City of Misfits."

Our prehistoric ancestors did not have to deal with old age, but in this modern world, we might want to regard human life as consisting of at least two stages; our primary life up to the age of 50, and an additional, second life after that.

By recognizing that we have a second phase of life, we can adjust society to deal with the changes that take place during that phase. For example, people at that age do not have to raise children, they have less interest in sex, their bodies are physically less active, and their mind deteriorates. These changes result in people changing their leisure activities, and they will not be able to do the same jobs that they could do when they were younger.

Rather than treat people over the age of 50 as if they are 20 years old, we should adjust society to deal with this issue, such as by designing an economic system to allow people to change jobs as they get older. Instead of expecting people to retire, it would be better to expect people to switch jobs as they grow older, and to design an economy that provides them with jobs that are more appropriate for their age. We could give older people preference for jobs that don't require a lot of physical strength or stamina, for example, and give them preference for part-time jobs. Their knowledge and experience would also be useful for schools and in supervisory positions.

We might also want to change our attitudes towards marriage and divorce. Our current attitude is that a married couple should stay together forever, but forever is now extending many decades into that second phase of life. Expecting couples today to remain married forever means that a couple needs to be compatible during the first phase of life - when they are young and raising children - and they must also be compatible during the second phase - when they change their leisure activities and jobs.

In the world today, marriages are so unstable that it's difficult to predict what the future generations might want to do about divorce, but I advise the future generations to consider the possibility that many couples will want to get divorced during that second phase of life because their activities will change during that phase.

If society is putting pressure on people to remain married forever, then some couples might remain married even though one or both partners would rather be divorced. Who benefits from a marriage that exists only because of peer pressure? It might be more sensible to accept the fact that divorce might become common during that second phase of life.

As soon as some society starts experimenting with a better social environment, they will figure out how to increase the stability of marriages, but they may discover that even though marriages are more stable during that first phase of life, they are not necessarily ideal for the second phase. Rather than put pressure on people to remain married forever, it might be more sensible to face the fact that we are now living so long that some couples will want to get a different spouse for that second phase.

Humans evolved for an environment in which each of us does what we want to do. Even though our prehistoric ancestors often worked together as a team, each person was his own boss. Humans did not evolve to follow laws or policemen. We have a craving to mimic one another, but we do not have a craving to follow laws. Actually, we have a resistance to laws.

A modern society needs thousands of laws, warning signs, and regulations. These laws organize and coordinate us, as well as protect us. We must push ourselves into ensuring that our government creates sensible laws, and we must push ourselves into following those laws. The government officials who create selfish or idiotic laws, and the people who refuse to follow laws, are hurting society.

We should not tolerate or encourage people to look for loopholes. Instead, we should teach children that laws and other documents are trying to transfer a concept from one person's mind to another, and that every citizen has a responsibility to try to understand those concepts rather than look for ways of interpreting the words in whatever manner we please.

We should not tolerate people who exploit mistakes with, or limitations of, our language. If a person discovers confusing phrases or mistakes in a document, he should send a message about the confusion to the government.

If lots of people accidentally misinterpret a law or warning sign, then our legal system should react by editing it to reduce confusion. However, if we come to the conclusion that some people are deliberately misinterpreting a law, those people should be regarded as criminals who are violating the law. We should not describe them as being "clever", and we should not allow them to fake ignorance or stupidity. Our attitude should be that if they really are that stupid or ignorant, they need to be on restrictions, like children, or evicted from society.

When most people today see a "no swimming" sign, they do not put any intellectual effort into contemplating the issue of why the sign was created and posted. We do not like to think, and so our natural tendency is to decode the words in the same casual manner as if we are reading a story to children. People are currently decoding warning signs into images without performing any quality control, such as asking ourselves, "What was the author trying to tell us?"

Our schools should prepare children for society by giving them exercises in understanding the concepts of laws and warning signs. This would help them get into the habit of trying to figure out what an author is trying to convey, rather than getting into the habit of decoding words into whatever concept they find most pleasing.

Different people will decode a sequence of words into different images no matter how much effort we put into trying to figure out what the author meant, but when we do not apply any quality control, we will end up with even greater differences in how we decode the words.

Why do we want to know the purpose of the law?

Some people reacted to the death of the boy at Disneyland by complaining that the no-swimming sign should have included the reason; namely, that there are alligators in the lake. Disneyland responded by creating a sign that warned people about alligators and snakes, as seen in the photo to the right.

Why do we want warning signs and laws to include the reasons behind them? In some cases, it is beneficial for us to understand the purpose of a warning sign or law, but many times we want to know the purpose because we inherently abhor laws. We want to do as we please. We are willing to follow laws if we agree with them, but we do not want to follow laws that we disagree with. Therefore, we want to know the reason for a law so that we can decide if we want to follow it.

Some people also want to know the punishment for disobeying a law. Those particular people provide support for the theory that punishments will cause some people to behave in a more honest manner. However, providing punishments is not an ideal solution. The ideal situation is for people to follow laws because they want to, not because they have contemplated the issue of whether the risk of punishment is worth the pleasure of violating the law.

Living among people who are refraining from violating our laws only because they fear punishment is like allowing a wild animal to live in your house and keeping it under control by threatening to hit it with a stick.

If humans were as honest, responsible, considerate, and law-abiding as we like to believe we are, then nobody would need detailed explanations for our laws, and they would not care if there were any punishments. If humans were truly willing to follow laws, we would simply follow them, just like robots.

Of course, we would not want to live in a world in which people were so much like robots that they mindlessly followed laws. The reason is because we need at least a small percentage of the population to analyze our laws to ensure that they are sensible. We don't want everybody in society to mindlessly obey the laws. The majority of people can be told to obey without question, but we need some people to regularly perform quality control analyses on our government officials and laws.

Since humans have a natural resistance to following laws, it is imperative for a government to put a lot of effort into ensuring the laws and warning signs are sensible. We are willing to follow laws that we can see the value of, but we will be very upset if we have to follow laws that we regard as selfish, abusive, or idiotic.

Unfortunately, whether a law is "sensible" depends upon a person's intellectual and emotional qualities. For example, some of the laws that the Amish community regard as "sensible" are "idiotic" to most of us.

It is impossible to design laws that everyone is happy with. When we create a society, we have to make a decision about who among us we are trying to appease, and who we are going to ignore.

Our society has a lot of laws that I would describe as idiotic and destructive. Our traffic laws make sense to me, but many of our other laws seem irrational. For example, a person who wants to immigrate to America has to ask for permission, but our government has been accepting thousands of refugees for decades, regardless of their mental illnesses, criminal history, stupidity, or desire to abandon their culture and language and become an American citizen.

George Soros is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to help bring in refugees. He does not want any of the refugees in his neighborhood; rather, he wants them in our neighborhoods. Why is he allowed to do that? Why are people who have lots of money allowed to exert more influence over society than the rest of us?

Furthermore, we don't care where people get their money from. Anybody with lots of money has a lot of influence over American society, regardless of whether the money has come from crime, inheritances, divorce settlements, or gambling.

The French government wants to arrest George Soros for crimes, but we give him sanctuary because he has lots of money. Does that make sense to you? If a burglar or rapist from France acquired lots of money, we would undoubtedly give him sanctuary, also.

This problem is not unique to the United States. Britain is giving sanctuary to wealthy criminals from Russia. However, the British government does not bother to protect the Russian criminals; many of them end up dead under mysterious circumstances.

Since we cannot create laws that appease everybody, a society has to make a decision on who they want to appease. We then have to ensure that our laws are sensible to that group of people.

The United States is dedicated to serving the underdog, the wretched refuse, and the huddled masses. This results in a lot of laws that I would describe as idiotic. By comparison, businesses and other organizations design their rules to appease the management.

When an organization creates laws that make sense to at least most of the people in management, then the managers will be able to tell the employees who do not understand or like the rules to shut up and obey them on the grounds that they make sense to the managers.

However, this concept will work properly only if the members of the organization respect the management. If the members regard the managers as corrupt, or as benefiting from nepotism, then the members are likely to regard the rules as being idiotic or selfish.

Incompetent and corrupt managers will cause the members to develop angry and rebellious attitudes. In order for the management to be successful in telling the members of the organization to shut up and obey the rules, the management must be able to convince the members that they are truly making sensible rules.

The history of businesses, sports groups, orchestras, and other organizations show that the most successful and pleasant organizations are those that:

1) Design rules that appease the management, not the majority of members, and especially not the wretched refuse of the organization.
2) Select the more intelligent, honest, and responsible people for management, and who avoid nepotism and crime networks.

We should apply the same principles to a city and a nation. Voters should not be selecting the "lesser of the evils". They should be selecting only the candidates that we can respect and admire.

It is interesting to note that Disneyland's improved warning signs included a warning not to feed the wildlife. Perhaps they added that additional warning because they were worried that by notifying people that there are alligators in the lake, some people will be stimulated into feeding the alligators.

As I described in an earlier document, people enjoy feeding animals, but not because we want to take care of the animals. Rather, women have a powerful craving to give food to their children, and men have a powerful craving to give gifts to their wife. These emotional cravings will encourage us to give food to wild animals. In the process, we can make the animals sick; we can cause the population of certain animals to rise to unnatural levels; and we can hurt ourselves when we feed dangerous animals, such as alligators.

The warning sign prohibited feeding "the wildlife", rather than "the alligators" because if the sign stated "Do not feed alligators", then many people would have fed other creatures and justified it by saying that the sign did not prohibit the feeding of ducks, snakes, and turtles.

The concepts I mentioned about warning signs also applies to fences. A fence can be described as a type of a warning sign, rule, or law. Just as we do not like to follow laws or warning signs, we do not like to obey fences. An animal's natural attitude is that he owns everything that he sees. An animal wants to travel to any area it pleases. It does not want to obey somebody's arbitrary boundaries.

When a person sees a warning sign, he will make a decision about whether he wants to obey it based upon whether he agrees with the warning sign, and what the punishment is for violating the sign. Likewise, when we see fences, we make decisions about whether we want to obey the fence, or whether we will disregard it and cross over it.

The fence that Disneyland put up around the lake is extremely simplistic. As the photo to the right shows, it consists of three ropes that are dangling between wooden posts.

Because that type of fence is easy to get across, some people who want to go in the water will interpret that simplicity as a sign that the fence is merely a suggestion on where people should remain, and that we are allowed to cross the fence if we want to.

What should Disneyland do if a child passes through the fence and gets killed by an alligator or a poisonous snake? Should Disneyland build a chain-link fence? Should Disneyland also install barbed wire along the top? Or should Disneyland build a concrete wall around the lake with armed guards in towers along the wall?

You may respond that I am getting carried away with my hypothetical situations, and that nobody would be stupid enough to cross the fence when there are warning signs about alligators and snakes. Unfortunately, you would be wrong. People all around the world are regularly climbing over fences that are much more difficult to get over than that simplistic fence that Disneyland created, and then getting hurt or killed as a result.

In August 2016, a couple of months after the child was killed by an alligator at Disneyland, a woman decided to visit a Southern California beach. She was on a walkway along a cliff that overlooked the beach. There was a three foot tall concrete wall separating the people from the cliff. There were signs along the wall warning people that the cliff was dangerous. However, she disregarded the warnings, climbed over the wall, fell to the rocks below, and died.

There is an average of one death every month at those cliffs, but the government never blames the victims. In a democracy, the government panders to the people. Our government officials never criticize the people, or tell them to be responsible for their behavior. Instead, some government officials reacted to the woman's death by warning people that they should not wear flip flops in rugged terrain. They blamed her death on her shoes, not on her disregard of the concrete wall and the warning signs. They were essentially telling people, "It's okay to ignore barriers and warning signs, but wear appropriate shoes when you do so."

If she had been barefoot, then the government would have blamed her death on being barefoot. If she had been wearing hiking shoes, the government would have blamed her death on her camera, cell phone, or clothing.

In August 2014, a Polish family was visiting a beach at Portugal. The parents decided to take a photo of themselves while standing along the cliffs, so they crossed over the fence along the walkway to stand near the edge of the cliff. Their children remained at the fence and watched as their parents slipped off the cliff and died. A Taiwanese company made this animation of the event.

There are warning signs and fences all over the world, but many people disregard them. When people get hurt or killed after climbing over a fence or disregarding a warning sign, some people react by complaining that the warning signs were not big enough, or the wall was not tall enough, but we should face the fact that humans are monkeys, and we simply do not like laws, walls, fences, or warning signs. We want to do whatever we please. We are selfish, arrogant creatures.

It is ridiculous for us to respond to every person who hurts himself by adding more warning signs, or making the walls taller, or adding more fences. We should design society for the people we regard as having appropriate minds, and we must accept the fact that many people are going to hurt themselves because they have trouble understanding and/or following laws, signs, and fences.

The people who die after disregarding fences and warning signs should be regarded as monkeys who don't belong in this modern world. This is not a cruel attitude. It is simply facing reality. Every living creature produces a wide variety of babies. We have to face the fact that a lot of the children are not going to be able to fit into society properly because they have characteristics that are unsuited to this modern world. Feeling sorry for them is not going to help them, and putting fences and warning signs around every potential danger will ruin the beauty of the planet.

During prehistoric times, when a person died from falling off a cliff or a tree branch, nobody reacted by putting a warning sign along the cliff or the tree. The people who did stupid things in those days died, thereby removing their genetic characteristics from the gene pool. This caused people to evolve into a creature that has a fear of heights, certain animals, loud noises, and darkness. Unfortunately, our prehistoric ancestors never had to deal with fences, laws, or warning signs, so they never evolved a desire to pay attention to fences, laws, or warning signs.

We should not feel sorry for the people who cannot cope with this modern world. The ideal solution to this problem is to control reproduction so that the human race evolves into a creature that is willing and able to understand and follow laws, warning signs, and fences.

I mentioned that it would be useful if we would standardize warning signs and provide a database for people to find information about them. The same concept applies to fences. Some of the fences that we create are meant to stop people from crossing, but others are for decorative purposes, for plants to climb on, to keep farm animals in a certain area, or to keep children out of an area but not adults.

It would be best if we would follow standards for fences so that people could easily recognize the purpose of a fence. For example, if a fence was designed to keep people away from a dangerous area, such as cliffs, the fence posts could have some type of arrowhead at the top. This requires that arrowhead decorations not be used on the posts for fences that were intended for plants to grow on.

If people were willing to obey the purpose of a fence, then fences that are meant to keep people out of an area would not have to be tall, or made of concrete, chain links, or barbed wire. Instead of ugly fences running along cliffs, we could create short, more decorative, more airy fences, but with fence posts that everybody recognizes as a warning to stay out of the area.

The decorative fences would be less expensive to produce because they would not be as tall, solid, or impenetrable, and they would make the city much more attractive. However, in order for this concept to be practical, it requires:
1) Government officials who can create standards for fences.
2) Citizens who are willing to obey the purpose of the fences.

It would be nice if the government developed software to analyze a photo of a fence post and provide information on what that type of fence means. With that type of software, a person who saw a fence that he was unsure about could take a picture of the fence post, and the software would display information about the purpose of that fence. Some of the fence posts could also have barcodes for additional information about that particular fence.

In 1992, a young man drove his grandmother, Stella Liebeck, to the drive-through window of a McDonald's restaurant. She ordered a cup of coffee, and he then parked the car so that she could add cream and sugar to the coffee. As she tried to lift the lid off of the coffee, she spilled the coffee into her lap. She complained that the coffee was so hot that she suffered third-degree burns. She filed a lawsuit against McDonald's. The coffee cup had a warning about its high temperature, but the jury decided that the warning was not adequate or large enough. McDonald's eventually gave her money, but the details are a secret. Her case brings up a lot of important issues:

1) We should solve problems, not profit from them

Liebeck's lawsuit is another example of how our legal system is encouraging people to react to problems by looking for ways to profit from them. We are not encouraged to look for ways to reduce the problems. The jury, for example, said that the warning on the coffee cup was inadequate and too small.

Apparently, coffee is a dangerous substance, and we need to be warned about it. What would an adequate warning message be? Two examples are below. Are either of them adequate?

If a court determines that a particular coffee cup or warning sign is inadequate, then the most sensible solution is to provide suggestions on what would improve the situation. Unfortunately, no legal system yet has any interest in understanding our problems, looking for solutions, or reducing the problems in the future.

I disagree with the jury that the warnings on coffee cups are inadequate. I would say that warnings on coffee cups are "unnecessary". I would go further and say that putting warning messages on coffee cups is creating the boy-who-cried-wolf problem. Everybody who orders coffee is fully aware that the coffee is near the boiling point of water. Nobody needs a warning message on a coffee cup, and nobody pays any attention to those messages. Therefore, making the messages larger, or adding more detail to them, is going to cause people to become even more annoyed by the warning messages, which in turn will cause people to disregard the warnings even more than they do now.

2) What if Stella Liebeck had hurt herself with a knife?

Imagine if Liebeck had ordered a hamburger, and she decided to cut the hamburger in half with a knife. Imagine that she slips and cuts her hand or her leg. Would you say that she should file a lawsuit against McDonald's or the knife manufacturer for not providing an adequate warning about the dangers of cutting a hamburger in your lap?

3) Do we want automobiles to be dining rooms?

Drive-through restaurants are another example of how businesses in a free enterprise system look for ways to make profit with no regard to whether they are improving our lives. If people would take the food to their home or a picnic area, then we could say that the drive-through restaurants are providing a convenience, but many people are eating the food while they are driving, which causes them to become a hazard to pedestrians and automobiles. Some people try to eat while sitting in a parked car, which can cause them to hurt themselves with hot foods.

There are so many people eating and drinking in their automobiles, and there are so many people spending so much time in their automobile, that engineers are now designing automobiles to have holders for drinks. What will automobiles in the future have? Will they come with coffee makers? Will they have micro freezers for holding milkshakes and ice cream?

Another problem with eating in an automobile is that it produces a lot of messy trash, and the type of people who eat in their automobile seem to be more likely than "normal" people to leave the trash in a parking lot, or toss it out the window as they are driving.

I think that if we were to create two cities that were identical in all respects, except that in one city the people were allowed to eat in their automobiles, and in the other city the people were required to eat in areas specifically set aside for eating, we would notice that life is better for the people who are eating in the designated areas. There would also be fewer automobile accidents and less litter.

Our prehistoric ancestors had no restrictions on their behavior, but as our societies became more complex, restrictions were imposed, and we must continue this process by adding even more restrictions. Most societies already have restrictions on how people can dispose of trash and human waste, and we need to add restrictions on the eating of food, the sending of text messages, and where and when it is appropriate for men and women to flirt with one another and wear sexually titillating clothing.

Businesses and militaries have restrictions on when and where people can eat food, and we should apply the same concept to society.

4) We deteriorate from age

Stella Liebeck was 79 years old when she spilled the coffee. Elderly people have more accidents than the rest of us, and their accidents are more serious, because their reflexes are more sluggish, their muscles are weaker, their skin is more delicate, and their intellectual abilities have diminished.

Unfortunately, most people are trying to ignore the fact that we deteriorate from age. We prohibit children from activities that they do not have the abilities, education, or training to do, and we should do the same with people when they become incapacitated from age, diseases, or accidents.

The elderly people should be prohibited from doing jobs and activities that put other people's lives in danger. This includes voting. Allowing elderly people to vote is putting everybody's lives in danger because their thinking abilities are substandard. Elderly people are not going to provide us with adequate leadership.

Everybody should be told that as they get old, it is up to them to adjust their activities to fit their age. If they hurt themselves with hot coffee, that is their problem, not ours. If they cut themselves with a knife, that is their problem, also. And if they hurt themselves during some athletic activity in which they behave like a teenager, that is their problem.

Everybody should be told to discover their abilities and limitations, and as we grow old, we must face the fact that our abilities decrease and our limitations increase, and we must adjust our lives accordingly. The people who refuse to accept reality should be told to suffer the consequences. We should not feel guilty when elderly people ignore the fact that they are deteriorating.

Our prehistoric ancestors never had to develop policies for elderly people, or people with disabilities as a result of accidents or disease, because they didn't have any such people. In modern society, however, there are lots of elderly people and people with disabilities, and we should deal with this issue. For example, we could design a city so that the homes for elderly and disabled people are in a location that provide them with easy access to food and activities so that they don't have to suffer with the transportation systems designed for younger people.

We could also set aside the more simplistic jobs for the elderly people. There are lots of tasks that they can handle, such as helping at daycare centers and schools, or helping with weddings, holiday celebrations, and other social affairs. Many elderly and disabled people are capable of contributing to society in some manner, but only if the economy treats them differently because they cannot compete against the younger, healthier people. We need an economic system and a society that treats people differently instead of pretending that everybody is identical.

5) Who is most likely to file lawsuits?

Liebeck's lawsuit against McDonald's brings up the interesting issue of who among us is most likely to file a lawsuit, and why they are filing the lawsuit. If we did not allow any secrecy, and if we had a database of everybody's life, we would be able to see who is filing lawsuits, and we would be able to pass judgment on why they are filing those lawsuits.

We would discover that some people file lawsuits simply to profit from them. An example is Gersh Zavodnik, who filed more than 120 lawsuits. He was not filing lawsuits to stop slander or libel. Rather, he was purchasing products and then filing lawsuits against the seller. The Indiana Supreme Court eventually decided that they were tired of his lawsuits and warned him that they would not tolerate any more of them. However, he did not get into trouble for filing those lawsuits; rather, he was merely warned that if he continues to file lawsuits he might get into trouble.

6) Who is most likely to have accidents?

A database of the human population would also show us who is having the most accidents, such as spilling coffee, falling off a bicycle, tripping while walking, and dropping objects on the floor. Accidents are not as random as the word implies. Some people have more accidents than others.

What causes us to have accidents? There are a lot of factors. Since we are biological robots, the performance of our muscles and brain depend upon a lot of complex chemical reactions that are affected by diet, alcohol, temperature, sleep, and other factors. Many people have noticed that we are more likely to have accidents when we are tired, hungry, under the influence of alcohol, or distracted by pains or loud noises. We could summarize this concept by saying that we will have fewer accidents when our mind and body is in its optimum condition.

A database of our accidents would give us a much better understanding of what is causing accidents, and how we can reduce them, especially if we had the ability to keep track of our blood chemistry throughout the day. For example, we might discover that we can reduce accidents on certain jobs by altering the environment of the employees to reduce the visual and auditory distractions, or by providing them with rubber mats to stand on so that their feet or legs don't get sore. We would undoubtedly find that comfortable employees have fewer accidents, but too much comfort might cause them to relax so much that it increases the accidents. Only by keeping track of the accidents will we be able to figure out what is an optimum environment.

By analyzing the accidents of a particular person rather than a group of people, we might notice that a particular person has most of his accidents about an hour after eating certain types of meals, and that could help us determine whether he is suffering from a problem with digestion, blood sugar, his liver, or hormones. Another person might show that his accidents are most likely to occur when the wind is blowing, and during certain times of the year, which could indicate that he is suffering from some type of allergy. We might discover that another person is more likely to have accidents within the first hour of waking up because his body has more trouble switching from sleep to activity. Most people might discover that they are more likely to have accidents in the evening, when they are tired.

The more detailed the database about our lives is, the better we would be able to understand our accidents, which in turn would allow us to do a better job of adjusting our lives and our social environment to reduce accidents.

Getting back to the issue of whether a warning sign should include reasons for prohibiting something, in some cases we benefit by knowing the reason because it allows us to know what to watch out for. For example, a warning sign that says "Danger, High Voltage", is more beneficial than a sign that says "Stay away" because it provides useful information on what we need to be cautious about.

We want warning signs to carry as much information as possible, but it is not practical for warning signs to provide lots of details. Rather than encourage citizens to whine about the lack of detail in a warning message, a better philosophy is to tell the citizens that they have a responsibility to learn about and understand the laws and warning signs. We should not feel sorry for people who behave in irresponsible manners and then claim that they were ignorant about the law or warning sign.

If our government would maintain a database of laws and warning messages, it would be easy for people to use their cell phone to figure out what any warning sign means simply by looking in the database to find that sign.

This same concept applies to when people travel to some other city. Specifically, every city government could provide information about their city. But before I explain that, imagine an extreme example of what people are doing right now. Imagine that a person in Florida decides to travel to Antarctica, but he has no interest in learning anything about Antarctica, so he packs his bags with the type of clothing that he wears at home. When he arrives in Antarctica in his short pants, sandals, and a short sleeve shirt, he becomes very cold. Imagine he gets frostbitten, and that some of his toes and fingertips have to be amputated. Would you feel sorry for him if he complains that there were no warning signs in Antarctica about frostbite?

Or imagine tourists from Canada visit Death Valley, and that some of them decide to take a hike in the desert, but they do not bother to bring much water with them, and the result is that some of them die from dehydration. Would you feel sorry for them if they complained that there were not enough warning signs in Death Valley that the area is hot and dry, and that people should carry lots of water with them?

I mentioned a few years ago here that a Canadian was visiting the city I live in, and he knew so little about the issue of sunburn that he disregarded everybody's warnings to be careful of sunburn. He ended up getting sunburned so badly that large blisters developed on his back, and he could not get to sleep for two days.

It is rare for a tourist to become that badly sunburned, so we ignore those people, but imagine that this was happening every day with the tourists who were visiting from northern climates. Imagine if all of the Canadians, Norwegians, and Germans were visiting southern California, Arizona, Florida, and other sunny climates, and getting such severe sunburns that all of the hospitals in the area had to expand in order to handle the thousands of tourists that needed medical treatment. Would you feel sorry for those people? If they complained that we should put fences and warning signs around the sunny areas, would you want to do so?

Certainly your reaction would be that a tourist has a responsibility to learn about the area he is traveling to, and that tourists also have a responsibility to learn about and cope with the differences of language, customs, wild animals, poisonous plants, diseases, and weather.

We will ruin the visual beauty of the planet if we put fences and warning signs along every potentially dangerous area because almost every area of the world is dangerous.

There is a park in Florida that has peacocks, and recently a peacock jumped on the head of a child, cutting the child's skin with its toenails. The park responded by putting up a total of 9 signs with the warning:

Eventually a child might be bitten by a spider or a rat, or scratched by a raccoon. Are we going to install more warning signs every time one of those problems occurs? If so, there are wild animals living in our neighborhoods and cities, so we would have to install warning signs everywhere.

It is possible for spiders, snakes, rats, and other creatures to get inside of hotel rooms, restaurants, trains, and retail stores. If a person is injured or killed by a wild creature in a hotel room or restaurant, who is responsible?

Are businesses responsible for exterminating all of the wild animals that live near their structures? Or should each of us have some responsibility for watching for and avoiding the wild animals?

A nation should follow the same philosophy that businesses follow. The management of a business has a responsibility for ensuring the workplace is free of wild animals, but they cannot guarantee that snakes, spiders, and other animals never get into the building, or never get into the vegetation or trees around the building. Every employee realizes they they have to expect and deal with flies and spiders, and sometimes with mice, rats, silverfish, and other creatures.

In a free enterprise system, businesses do not have any motivation to treat us with respect, and they have no incentive to improve society in any way. When they offer trips to Disneyland, Death Valley, Antarctica, Cambodia, or Hawaii, their only concern is making a profit from their services. They are selling a product, not trying to make life better for us, or educate us about the world we live in. We are "customers" to a business, not "friends". Each of us is a "profit opportunity" in a free enterprise system, not a "person".

A free enterprise system puts businesses into competition for profit with no regard to the quality of our lives. The end result is that the businesses that offer vacations are competing to titillate us rather than competing to provide us with intelligent advice and guidance. They try to attract our attention by making it appear as if their particular services are going to allow us to find happiness, relaxation, excitement, or a spouse. They have no interest in educating us about the area that we are traveling to.

If we enjoyed learning about the world, then we would voluntarily learn about an area before we traveled to it, and businesses would compete with one another to provide us with information. However, we have a resistance to learning. We will voluntarily learn information only if it titillates our emotions. Most people enjoy learning about Hollywood celebrities and sports teams, so there are lots of businesses providing us with that type of information, but we are not much interested in learning about the earth, history, or many other issues.

People are regularly spending an enormous amount of money on fiction books, movies, and other forms of entertainment, but there is not a big market for serious material, and many people will refuse to read nonfiction even if it has been provided to them for free.

It is not natural for animals or humans to learn or think. Our natural tendency is to titillate ourselves. If we were titillated by learning and thinking, then we would love to spend our leisure time doing such things, but we are titillated by fame, material items, sex, babies, food, and music. The end result is that when people travel to different areas of the world, they are interested only in the opportunities for fame, food, sex, and other entertainment. Most tourists do not have much interest in learning about the area that they are traveling to. Not many of them are interested in exploring the area, either, or learning about how the people live.

Since we resist learning about the world we live in, most people will take a trip to Florida without any understanding of the dangerous plants and animals in Florida, or how much lightning Florida gets. There are also more attacks by sharks along some of the beaches of Florida than any other state, but how many tourists know about that, or want to know?

Three months after the child was killed by the alligator at Disneyland, some journalists working for Inside Edition visited Disneyland to see if there were still alligators in the area. They wrote this report in which they expressed their surprise that alligators were still living in the lakes and waterways. The title of their report was:

Apparently, those journalists expected every alligator in the area to have been killed, and for Disneyland to make sure that no alligators get into the area. Their news report is as stupid as a report with the title:

After case of frostbite in Alaska, the area is still just as cold

Not many tourists, or journalists, are interested in understanding why there are alligators in Florida.

In September 2016, a man filed a lawsuit against Disneyland for being bitten by a snake three years earlier in one of their swimming pools. If a person at Disneyland gets bit by a spider, is Disneyland responsible for that, also? What if somebody gets bit by a mosquito that has a disease, such as malaria? What if a person at Disneyland is bitten by a skunk, raccoon, or rat?

During prehistoric times, everybody had to take care of themselves. Each person was responsible for protecting himself from wild animals, insects, spiders, thorns, sharp rocks, and other dangers. Today lawyers encourage us to file lawsuits and blame other people.

Who is responsible for the deaths and injuries caused by animals and insects? How much responsibility should citizens have for dealing with wild animals and insects? How much responsibility do business owners have for protecting their customers from wild animals and insects?

This is an issue that a modern society should deal with, but in a democracy, the government does nothing, and in a free enterprise system, the lawyers exploit the problems.

Some people might respond that the reason they don't learn about an area before they travel to it is because it is so difficult to find information. This is a valid complaint, to a certain extent. If a tourist wants to travel to Florida, for example, where does he find information about the area? If a person wants to travel to Cambodia, where is the information about that area?

There are websites with tremendous amounts of information about Hollywood stars, movies, sports events, athletes, and Harry Potter stories. The imdb.com website, for example, has details on a tremendous number of movies, TV shows, and entertainers. However, there is very little information for tourists to learn about areas that they are traveling to. The reason is simply because most people don't want to learn about the world they live in. They want entertainment.

If a person were to create a website that was analogous to imdb but which contained information about different locations of the world, rather than different movies and actors, how many tourists would bother to look at it?

The Internet has millions of websites and videos, but not many of them can be described as "serious", "educational", or "useful". The Discovery television network has created some documentaries that are supposed to be educational, but even those documentaries have been designed to titillate us rather than educate us.

Television documentaries could be providing us with a lot of valuable information. For example, they could be helping us understand how to clean items properly so that we don't waste soap, and so that the OCD people don't become paranoid of germs. Documentaries could also provide us with information about our world, such as the alligators in Florida, and the wolves in Alaska. We could provide ourselves with a lot of useful documentaries.

Unfortunately, in a free enterprise system, the businesses that produce documentaries are in competition for profit, not in competition to produce useful documentaries. The businesses are trying to attract a lot of viewers, not educate viewers. This results in documentaries that are at the intellectual level of a child, and which are also designed for people who cannot keep their attention on an issue for more than a few seconds.

For example, a common technique in the Discovery documentaries is for the narrator exaggerate the danger of some particular issue in order to get us excited. In a documentary about the construction of a glass roof, the narrator says, "if something goes horribly wrong, it could mean the total destruction of the station's spectacular new glass roof." And they have music and sound effects at the same time.
Here is an MP3 file of that section: if-something-goes-wrong.mp3

Their remark that "if something goes horribly wrong" applies to everything we do. For example, if the Discovery network were to create a documentary that shows a child learning to ride a bicycle, the narrator might say, "If something goes horribly wrong, the child could fall off the bicycle and hit his face on the concrete sidewalk, causing the total destruction of his front teeth!"

Or if the Discovery network were to create a documentary that shows a mother cutting a watermelon into pieces for her children, the narrator might say, "If something goes horribly wrong, she could cut her arm or fingers with the knife, totally severing her arteries and possibly bleeding to death in front of her children!"

In one documentary in which construction workers were building something, the narrator said that "the placement of the item is critical", but that is true of almost everything we build.

In another documentary we are told that the equipment is being "pushed to its limit", but a lot of equipment is designed to operate near its maximum. A lot of equipment has only an on-off switch, such as a jackhammer, and so that type of equipment could be described as being pushed to its limit every time it is used.

The wires in a piano are under a lot of tension. If the Discovery network were to create a documentary about music, they might say, "The piano tuner is stretching the wire near its limit, so if anything goes horribly wrong, the wire could snap, whipping him in the face and cutting into his skin or eyes."

In one documentary, the narrator says that the construction workers were 30 feet above the ground, and that a person could die if they fell at that height. Some people put Christmas decorations higher up than that, and when we were children, we would climb trees, and we might have occasionally climbed as high as 30 feet above the ground.
Here is an MP3 file of that section: thirty-feet-off-the-ground.mp3

Problems occur all the time when we do something, but when a problem occurs while the Discovery film crew is recording an event, the narrator exaggerates it into a potentially life-threatening, dangerous, unexpected disaster. After the people deal with the problem successfully, the narrator makes it appears as if they just achieved something incredible, as opposed to being honest and pointing out that the people deal with similar problems every day.

In a documentary about how glass is made, the narrator tells us that the furnace is "hotter than volcanic lava". Most of us don't know how hot volcanic lava is, and I suspect that different volcanoes are producing lava at different temperatures, but the image of a volcano is more entertaining than a numerical value of the temperature.
Here is an MP3 file of that section: hotter-than-volcano.mp3

The television documentaries are entertainment, not educational. The reason is simply because humans and animals do not have much of an interest in learning about the world. A free enterprise gives us what we want, which is entertainment, not what we need, which is informative documentaries. Denying this is not going to help us. We need to understand what we are, and figure out how to best deal with our characteristics.

We are lying to ourselves if we claim that we watch the documentaries on television because we enjoy educational programs. We need to be realistic about our mental characteristics, and we need to figure out how to best deal with these characteristics. For example, I would suggest that we stop allowing entertainment to be described as a "documentary". This complaint is similar to what I have said about the Daily News. That publication should not be allowed to refer to itself as "news". It should be referred to as entertainment.

We encourage deception when we allow businesses to describe their entertainment as "news" or as a "documentary". We should restrict those words to materials that can truly be described as educational. This requires that the government have a Quality Control department that passes judgment on which television shows and documents are entertainment and which are educational.

The Quality Control department would be able to put pressure on the people making documentaries to make them more serious, such as by getting rid of the music and sound effects in the background, and stopping the drama. We should design documentaries for what we regard as the better quality people of society, not the idiots with ADHD.

Once we have this Quality Control system in operation, we could let the QC department go even further and classify documents on the Internet as educational or entertainment. A document that has not been classified would be "unrated", and any business or person who wanted their document to be classified as educational would have to submit it to the government. The benefit with this system is that when we search the Internet for information, we would be able to restrict the search to the materials classified as "educational", thereby sparing us from the thousands of other documents and videos.

It might seem idiotic to allow a government to classify documents and television programs as educational or entertainment, but there are already organizations giving a rating to movies and television programs, and there are also organizations, such as Consumer Reports, that analyze products and give them ratings of some sort. However, nobody shows any concern about the educational value of a television program because most people don't care about the educational value of a program or document.

In the advanced nations, most people have so little control over their sexual inhibitions that their primary concern about television programs and documents are whether they show sexual information. Most people don't care whether a television show has any educational value, or whether it encourages bad attitudes, or whether children who watch the show pick up idiotic cravings for certain types of toys, clothing, or food. Most people don't even care whether a documentary or school book is telling us the truth. A good example are the documentaries and school books that lie about the 9/11 attack, the Apollo moon landing, and the world wars.

As of 2016, there are millions of people around the world who realize that journalists are lying to us about the 9/11 attack and other events, but none of them will publicly complain about it, and none of them try to protect their children from the dishonest news reports or school books. However, many of those people would complain if a school book published a photo of a naked man or woman, and they would try to protect their children from the photo by demanding that the school remove those "filthy" and "disgusting" books.

This is another example of why people need to exert some self-control over their emotional cravings, and push themselves into thinking about what makes the most sense. People are currently concerned only about sexual issues because they are following their emotions rather than thinking about what makes the most sense.

If the voters would select people for government office who have better control of their sexual inhibitions, then instead of focusing on sex, the government could give television shows, movies, and documents a rating that gives us an indication of its educational value, and the audience that it was designed for, such as children, teenagers, typical adults, mothers, scientists, or people who work in the field that the documentary is describing.

There are also organizations, such as the New York Times, giving us reviews to paper books, and there are journalists who recommend books for us to read. As I mentioned in a previous document, the journalists are currently promoting the books that are recommended by Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg.

Instead of allowing organizations of mysterious people to secretly give ratings to products, books, and television shows, the Quality Control Department of our government should do it. Furthermore, the government officials should not be allowed to operate secretly or anonymously. Their reviews should identify them as the author, and they should be held accountable for their reviews. We should pass judgment on which officials are providing us with sensible reviews, and which of them need to be replaced.

There are already lots of people involved with analyzing products, books, and television programs, so I'm not suggesting that we try something that has never been done before. All I am suggesting is that we switch to letting the government handle these functions so that we have some control over the process.

If we don't give the government this function, then organizations will continue to do it, and each organization will be following their own selfish desires rather than working together for the benefit of society. The New York Times, for example, is not reviewing books or websites for our benefit; rather, they do it to promote Jewish propaganda, and to censor the information that they don't like. We have no control over who in the New York Times is creating reviews, and we cannot replace any of those people.

Furthermore, some organizations are also giving us their opinions on who we should vote for. For example, the New York Times published this article to support Hillary Clinton. Is that your idea of an intelligent analysis of the candidates? What would you think if every organization in the country, including your local supermarkets, gasoline stations, schools, and hospitals, were providing you with their opinions on who you should vote for?

Our current system is not providing us with useful reviews of products or books, or intelligent analyses of the candidates. Instead, this system is analogous to a group of dogs that are fighting with each other for control of some sheep. These organizations are competing to manipulate us, not competing to improve life for us.

It would be more sensible to have a Quality Control Department to provide us with reviews of products and documents, and to allow us to see what they do, and to regularly replace the officials who we regard as doing the worst job.

Of course, this system requires that some citizens take an active role in society by complaining if they see something given an incorrect rating. The system will not work properly if a society is dominated by apathetic monkeys who don't care if they are abused. For example, when people watch a television documentary that they believe should have been classified as "entertainment", we need at least some of them to send a complaint to the government rather than ignore it.

The managers of businesses are already doing something similar to what I propose. Specifically, they determine what type of materials are acceptable for a company newsletter, and they pass judgment on what is acceptable for art in the company.

Allowing a government to have a Quality Control Department that passes judgment on the value of products, and whether a television program should classify as entertainment or as a documentary, is going to solve some problems but create others. It will be easy for people to complain that this system is imperfect.

The majority of people are frightened of changes, and so they put a lot of their effort into looking for excuses to do nothing. One of the most popular excuses is to find flaws in a proposal, and then complain that since the proposal is not a perfect solution, we should wait for a better proposal. Unfortunately, if we wait for perfection, we will wait forever.

When engineers design products, they cannot wait until the product is perfect. They have to stop at some point and put it into production. They can then watch how people use it, and they can develop an improved version a year or so later.

Likewise, we cannot wait for somebody to develop a perfect government system. All we can hope for is to create something that is better than what we have right now. After we implement a better government, we must watch how it operates, and we must look for improvements to it.

We must regard government systems the same way we regard airplanes, cell phones, and computers; specifically, as "technology". Our goal should be to continuously improve our government system, school system, and economic system. We should be looking for improvements to our social technology, not looking for excuses to do nothing.

Each city could maintain a database that provides information about their particular animals and plants, their holidays, their laws, their weather, and other aspects of their city and culture. A city could also provide information about the poisonous and dangerous animals and plants in their area. Both the residents of the city and the tourists would be able to browse through that database to learn about the city.

As of 2016, the Internet is being used by city governments to advertise their city, but the governments are doing this only to increase tourism, which they hope will increase tax revenue. They are not providing information to educate us about their city. They are trying to manipulate us into visiting their city and spending our money on worthless souvenirs.

Just about everything the businesses and governments are doing today is to exploit and manipulate us. The businesses are struggling to sell things to us, and the government officials are trying to raise more tax money and pander to their particular group of supporters. None of our business or government leaders are interested in the quality of our lives, or in improving society.

In the area where I live, some of the poisonous plants in the area are castor beans, oleander, and poison oak. Schools don't bother to teach children about these dangers, however, and neither does the city government. My father planted oleander in our backyard, and since it would grow very quickly in this climate, we would have to trim it regularly. Our hands would get oleander juice on them. Is it safe for people to get oleander juice on their hands?

A couple miles away from where I live some people trimmed the oleander in their yard, and they decided to burn the thick branches in their fireplace, and the result is that they all felt miserable for a day or so afterwards. Apparently, it is unhealthy to breathe oleander fumes and/or smoke. If I had not heard about their suffering, I would not have realized that oleander would be unhealthy for fires and barbecues. Are firemen taught that they should be careful about breathing the fumes of burning oleander bushes? What happens when castor bean plants are burned? How about poison oak?

Our city governments don't have any easily accessible information on the city's poisonous and dangerous plants and animals, and schools are not providing this information, either. Schools do not even teach children about the dangers of bleach, ammonia, acetone, antibacterial products, or other chemicals that we are likely to encounter in our homes. Rather, schools are pandering to parents and children.

What is going to happen if businesses develop the technology to offer trips to the moon? Will the cities on the moon have the same type of websites as cities on the Earth? Will they try to encourage tourism and ignore the dangerous aspects of the moon? Will businesses advertise trips to the moon in the same deceptive manner that they advertise trips to Tahiti, Disneyland, and Hawaii? Will they exaggerate the exciting aspects of space travel and ignore all of the problems and dangers?

You might think that no business would be so irresponsible as to offer trips to the moon without warning people of the danger, but sports organizations are hiding the dangers of concussions, and NASA is hiding the dangers of outer space.

The people who profit from sports have been suppressing and minimizing the dangers of concussions and other injuries, and NASA has been doing the same with the dangers of space travel. NASA creates the impression that space travel is fun for the entire family, but it doesn't require much intelligence to see through NASA's propaganda and realize that outer space is dangerous. For example, Scott Kelly spent a year in the space station, and three months after getting back on earth, he was still suffering from sore feet, burning skin, flu-like symptoms, and other problems. After returning from his last trip he said: "This flight was twice as long and I felt twice as bad."

Even more frightening, he said his coordination was not as good. Is the degradation in his coordination due to being weightless? Will his body eventually heal itself? Or is the degradation due to bombardment from particles and radiation? Does he have permanent nerve or brain damage? Nobody knows, and NASA is trying to keep all of the information a secret so that we believe that space travel is as safe as a trip to a local park.

According to this news report, 80% of the astronauts who spend a "long" time and space suffer from a "mysterious syndrome" that affects their eyes, such as deteriorated vision and inflamed optic nerves. What is a "long" time? Most astronauts have been in space for only a few months. Does NASA consider a few months in space to be a "long" time? If so, then how are people going to survive a flight to Mars?

Imagine if businesses were to behave in the same manner as NASA. What would you think if Monsanto developed a new pesticide that caused inflamed optic nerves and bad eyesight in 80% of the people who ate the food that it was used on, but instead of warning everybody about the danger, they ignored it and continued to promote the pesticide?

We are allowing our government officials, news reporters, school officials, and other people in influential positions to behave in a manner that should be described as disgusting and atrocious.

NASA has been aware of the dangers of outer space since the 1950s when rockets reached above above the atmosphere and discovered that outer space was full of radiation and high-speed particles. When NASA sent animals into outer space in the 1960s, some of the animals died after only of hours or days.

NASA does not understand what happens to a human body when it is exposed to the particles and radiation of outer space. They also do not understand the effect of weightlessness on the human body. However, rather than be honest with us, NASA is hiding the dangers of outer space. People would complain about a business that behaved in such a horrible manner, but there is nothing we can do about our corrupt and dishonest government, except hope that the military eventually gets fed up with the problem and throws them out of power. We don't have a Quality Control Department to send complaints to.

In one of the drawings of a Mars colony, (below), the farms are shown to be underground, but NASA and the businesses that promote space travel remain silent about how incredibly difficult it would be to grow food underground.

If it were easy to put farms underground on Mars, then it would be much easier for us to do it here on the Earth. Furthermore, underground farms would solve a tremendous number of problems. In addition to releasing an enormous amount of land for other purposes, underground farms would allow every city to produce whatever foods they pleased, and without any concern about the weather, insects, diseases, herbicides, or pesticides. We would not have to ship food around the world. Everybody would have access to fresh, poison-free food. The scientists who live in Antarctica could put farms under the ice and never have to worry about shipments of food.

Considering all of the advantages to underground farms, why don't we put farms underground? The reason should be obvious; namely, it is the most inefficient method of growing food ever devised. It would also require a tremendous amount of electricity and lights. Where would all that additional electricity come from? We are already producing a phenomenal amount of electricity. If we were to put our farms underground, we would need to produce enough electricity to provide the plants with light. How much electricity would that be? And how much energy and resources would be needed to dig the caverns to hold all of those underground farms?

Before hiring a scientist at NASA, the job candidates should be told to estimate how much electricity and resources a city would need in order to grow its food underground. If NASA would hire only the candidates who could provide an accurate estimate, we might have a space agency that is aware of how idiotic it is to attempt a Mars colony with the technology that we have today.

Ideally, our leaders would be honest about the potential dangers and technical difficulties of space travel, but NASA and SpaceX ignore the problems and are planning to send people to Mars. In September 2016, Elon Musk told a group of people in Mexico about his plans, but all he and NASA have are vague fantasies. Even more sad, Musk said he would not go to Mars because "the likelihood of death is very high".

Furthermore, it should be noted that most of the unmanned craft that have been sent to Mars have been failures. Before we send people to Mars, we should figure out how to successfully send robots to Mars. To do otherwise would be as stupid as an airline offering trips on a particular model of airplane in which most of the flights were crashing. Also, we cannot yet even put people on the moon, so why are we trying to go to Mars?

In this article, a trip to Mars is described as exposing an astronaut to about as much radiation as if he were to get a complete body CT scan every five or six days, but NASA may be deceiving us about that, also. The reason is because a CT scan exposes us to a relatively narrow band of x-rays, whereas outer space exposes us with a wide variety of gamma and x-rays, and lots of high-speed particles. It may be more accurate to compare outer space to the inside of a nuclear reactor.

There are some areas of Nevada that are supposed to be contaminated with uranium and plutonium to such an extent that nobody is allowed in the area. Those areas would be excellent for Mars colonies. The people could bury their farms and homes in that dirt, and they would essentially simulate life on Mars. Whenever they walked out onto the surface, they would have to be enclosed in spacesuits to protect themselves from the radioactive waste, just like they would have to do on Mars.

NASA and the businesses that are promoting space travel could be accused of running a scam. They could be accused of lying to us about the dangers of space travel and fooling us into believing that space travel is fun. NASA's travel posters should be regarded as being as deceptive as astrology charts.

Incidentally, the dangers of outer space brings up an issue that most people have trouble dealing with. Specifically, people who will soon die from old age or disease could volunteer for one-way trips to fix a space telescope, or to the moon or Mars. We could provide them with some type of poison for the time at which they ran out of food or water, or when they decided they were suffering too much from the radiation.

Since each of us is going to die at some point in time, why not let a person end his life by doing something useful for the human race, such as exploring the moon and describing the effects the radiation is having on his health? Why not spend a year or so on the moon instead of 10 years in a nursing home?

Likewise, why not let people who are about to die volunteer for risky operations on the Earth? For example, after the Fukushima nuclear reactor exploded mysteriously, people were needed to go into the reactor to fix the problems. The people who are about to die of old age or disease, if they are physically and mentally capable of doing the job, could volunteer to do it. Since the radiation may further degrade their health, we could have the decency to provide them with assisted suicide when they decided that they could no longer deal with the suffering.

Most people have such low self-control that they cannot calmly discuss the concept of assisted suicide, or the issue of allowing a person to take a one-way trip to the moon or Mars. Their inability to deal with this issue also makes it illegal for a person who is dying to offer himself as an organ donor before he is dead, which would require that he go into the hospital alive, and that the surgeons kill him only when the donor is ready for his organ.

In prehistoric times, people did not travel long distances, and they did not travel quickly. With our modern transportation devices, we can easily and quickly travel to a completely different environment with different plants, animals, and diseases. In this modern world, we can hurt ourselves when we travel to other areas without an understanding of the area.

Who should be responsible for warning tourists traveling to Florida about the alligators, lightning, and poisonous snakes? Who should be responsible for warning people who travel to Alaska about frostbite? Who should be responsible for warning people that outer space is dangerous?

I can understand that tourists going to Disneyland in Florida are unaware that Florida has a lot of alligators and snakes because we are living in a society that does not put any effort into providing information for us. We have a free enterprise system in which businesses compete to manipulate us into spending money, and we live among government officials who pander to us and try to lure us into visiting their city so that they can raise more tax money.

Both businesses and governments try to trick us into believing that by traveling, we will find excitement, a spouse, or become the center of attention when we get home and talk about the trip. They are exploiting us, especially people who are unhappy, suffering from low self esteem, or lonely.

For example, a business that offers trips to ski resorts might show us unrealistic photos of nice-looking, intelligent, and wealthy single men and women at the resort in order to attract single people who are looking for a spouse. Or a business might titillate us with unrealistic or edited photos of Hawaii, Tahiti, and other destinations that show beautiful beaches and forests that are quiet and clean.

The advertisement		The reality

Governments and businesses could be described as deceptive, manipulative, dishonest, and abusive, but instead we describe them as "clever".

What the advertisements show us
The reality

Governments and businesses try to convince us that if we travel to some other city, we will find excitement, a spouse, or something that we cannot find in our own city. It does not require much intelligence to realize that this theory is false. All you have to do is notice that there are people already living in the city that is supposedly one of the most exciting travel destinations in the world.

If it were true that Paris, Hawaii, Tahiti, or other "exciting vacation destination" was truly capable of making a person's life worthwhile, then the people who live there would be happier than everybody else. None of the people who grew up in those "exciting" cities would want to move to another city. Tourists would be so excited after arriving those cities that they would look for excuses to remain in the city, and businesses would try to find ways to transfer their operation to those cities.

In reality, every city on this planet is very similar to the other cities. Every city is chaotic and disorganized, and they all have incompetent and corrupt governments. All cities have traffic congestion, homeless people living in the streets, unwanted children in orphanages, and lots of crime, graffiti, and litter. Every city is full of "ordinary" people and "below average" people, so every city has lots of obesity, alcoholism, gambling problems, prostitutes, anti-social people, lunatics, stupidity, and people who abandon their unwanted pet dogs and cats in the city.

It is certainly true that the cities in Japan, Europe, and United States are better than those of the Third World nations, which is why so many of the Third World citizens want to move to our nations, but all cities have a lot of problems.

As a result of the Third World people moving to the "First World" nations, many cities in Europe now have serious problems with refugees, in addition to all of their other problems. The photo below shows some of the refugees from Africa and the Middle East living on the streets of Paris.

Our cities are becoming more technically advanced every year, but socially they are becoming worse as a result of:

1) People refusing to do anything about the problem of refugees, crime, homelessness, incompetent governments, and immigrants.
2) The human race is degrading genetically. Every year there are more retarded people, more mental disorders, and more criminals.

Governments and businesses are promoting a distorted view of traveling. They are fooling people into believing that traveling to some other city will make their life better.

In reality, most people do not like to travel, especially not across a lot of time zones. The proof of my statement is that when most people reach their destination, they do the type of things that they could do in their own city, such as shopping, eating, playing golf, watching television, gambling, drinking beer, and lounging around a swimming pool. Most tourists don't show any interest in learning about the culture of the city, or its animals, plants, land, or weather. Most people are not explorers or adventurers.

We should not encourage traveling. Traveling should be only for the people who truly have an interest in exploring the world. Traveling is time-consuming and requires a lot of resources, and there is no point in traveling if the only reason a person wants to travel is because he is bored or lonely. It would be more sensible for us to put our resources into creating cities for ourselves that are so attractive and offer so many activities that we want to spend our vacations in our own city.

To understand this, consider two different planets, each with a different philosophy about traveling. On one planet, the people are encouraged to travel during holidays and vacations. On the other planet, the people are encouraged to make their city so nice that they don't want to travel.

On the planet where people do a lot of traveling, the people have to put a lot of their labor and resources into airplanes, airports, ships, and other transportation devices, and they need a lot of hotels for the tourists.

On the other planet, fewer resources would be put into the services that support traveling, and so they would have more resources to put into their city. Instead of building gigantic airports and lots of hotels, they would put their effort into making their architecture more beautiful; their parks and recreational areas more interesting and with a wider variety of activities; and they would design their city to offer more social activities, museums, music concerts, tours of factories, and arts and crafts. They would provide their cities with canals for rafts and rowboats, and they would have ponds for swimming, snorkeling, and scuba diving. The city would be a gigantic botanical garden with apartment buildings, factories, and schools scattered among the trees and plants. They would have walkways and bicycle paths through the forests and on the surface of some of the ponds. They could have roads for small, electric vehicles for people who want to visit the picnic areas, recreational areas, or forests that are farther away from the city. Their city would be so full of beautiful areas to explore and have so many activities that people would have lots of variety to choose from for their weekends and holidays.

Until we start experimenting with our options, we cannot be sure of what type of life we would be most happy with, but I suspect we will prefer to reduce the emphasis on traveling. The reason I say this is because we do not enjoy traveling. Every hour we spend on traveling is an hour of boredom and irritation. Increasing the speed of airplanes and trains can solve that problem only if we remain near the same time zone. When we have to travel through a lot of time zones, traveling becomes even more irritating.

Our characteristic of assuming that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence may be one of the reasons that we have an urge to travel, but we should put our effort into making our own city so wonderful that we enjoy visiting our own parks, museums, restaurants, and recreational areas. We should also experiment with a social environment that helps us find friends so that we enjoy spending our leisure time with our friends in our own city.

If we put our resources into making our city more enjoyable, then we can enjoy life without any traveling. We won't have to suffer the irritation of dealing with time zones, or with packing and unpacking our suitcases.

I've mentioned many times that humans have a craving to be at the top of the hierarchy, especially men. This craving is one of the reasons people enjoy traveling. Specifically, many people are traveling simply so that they can boast about travelling when they get home.

An example of people who travel for the status value are the Europeans who have visited the area of California where I live in, and when I pointed out to some of them that they are starting to get sunburned and should be careful, some of them responded to me that they want to get sunburned on the final days of their trip so that they could show off to their friends and coworkers. They were deliberately getting sunburned because they wanted to use the sunburn as a status symbol.

It is possible that the Canadian man I mentioned who got blisters on his back from the sun had the same attitude. He may have been disregarding everybody's warning about sunburn because he wanted to get sunburned, except that he may have been so ignorant about sunburn that he remained in the sun too long.

When people travel to a sunny climate simply to get sunburned, they are behaving like monkeys who are fighting for status. Imagine a more extreme example. Imagine a person traveling to Antarctica and deliberately getting frostbite on his fingertips so that he can have them amputated, and then everybody he encounters would notice that he is missing his fingertips, and that would give him the opportunity to boast about how he traveled to Antarctica. Would you be impressed by such a person? Or would you regard him as a mentally ill person who is suffering from low self-esteem? What is the difference between a person who takes a trip to Antarctica and:

a) Deliberately lets himself become frostbitten in order to give himself opportunities to boast about his trip.
b) Avoids frostbite, but travels to Antarctica only so that he could boast about his trip.

It is detrimental for a society put resources into airplanes, airports, and other travel services simply so that people can show off to one another. We should design society to encourage what we regard as desirable, productive behavior.

If we had a government that encouraged sensible behavior, then traveling would be regarded as a boring and irritating activity, rather than something to boast about. The only people who travel should be those who truly have an interest in exploring the world, and who are going to learn about the area they travel to, and who will be responsible for adjusting to the culture that they are traveling to. The majority of people should stay in their own city, or near their own city because most people are not truly interested in exploring the world, or adapting to other people's culture. Most of us would prefer to watch a video documentary about other cities, lands, and oceans so that we don't have to be bothered with the inconvenience of traveling.

By designing a city with lots of comfortable social clubs with large, advanced video monitors, such as the one in the photo below, we would be able to watch videos about the world while remaining in the comfort of our own city. That is the type of traveling most people would prefer.

Instead of a city putting its resources into providing people with large houses and large televisions, we could put our resources into a smaller number of higher-quality video rooms that are available to everybody. Some of the video rooms would be for as few as six people, and others would be large enough for dozens of people. The city would create enough video rooms so that people aren't waiting for a vacancy, and each of the rooms could have different decorations to provide us with variety. The city's computer system would keep track of when people are in a room, so people could look on their phone to see which rooms are available.

If people could also control their paranoia of being watched, the city's computers could also keep track of where everybody is, thereby allowing us to look on our phones to see if our friends are in one of the video rooms, or at some recreational activity, museum, music concert, or restaurant.

Many of the spectacular photos of animals have required photographers to spend months following the animals and waiting for opportunities to get good photos of them. By watching those videos in a comfortable social club, we don't have to suffer the months of boredom, rain storms, mosquitoes, unpleasant temperatures, and miserable odors.

Furthermore, when we have access to high quality video of the trip, we can rewind it, slow it down, and analyze it. By comparison, if we travel to the site and look at it with our eyes, we won't see nearly as much detail. And if we record the trip with our own video camera, most of us are so inept with a camera that the video will not be nearly as interesting.

When robots and drones become more advanced, we can send them out into the forest and oceans and let them travel for us, thereby providing us with video of areas that are cold, hot, stinky, and dangerous.

Another problem that a society should deal with in regards to laws, fences, and warning signs is that people will sometimes follow the badly behaved people. Our natural tendency is to follow the majority of people rather than a minority that behaves badly, or a minority that behaves better than average, but when we are frustrated or angry, we will often follow a badly behaved person.

For example, the city that I live in occasionally arranges for a festival, and as is typical in our modern cities, there is never enough parking spaces for automobiles. Many people become frustrated as they drive around the crowded streets looking for a parking spot. There have been times when one of the people became so frustrated that he parked in one of the no-parking zones.

Normally we would regard such a person as violating our traffic laws, but when people are frustrated from looking for a parking location, and since we do not like to follow laws, some people will interpret that situation in the manner that they want to interpret it; namely, that the city is allowing people to park in the no-parking zones because of the overcrowded conditions caused by the festival. This can cause another person to park in the no-parking zone.

As more people park in the no-parking zone, people who would normally never do it will convince themselves that it must be acceptable to park there because there are so many other people doing it. In some of these cases, the police eventually noticed the cars in the no-parking zone, and gave all of them a parking ticket.

The very first person to park his car in the no parking zone was probably the type of person that we would describe as a "bad apple". He was undoubtedly a person who was prone to anger, temper tantrums, selfishness, and arrogance. People would not normally follow that type of person. However, when other people are also frustrated or angry, they become more likely to follow a person they would not normally follow simply because he is doing something that they want to do, and so he is providing them with justification to misbehave.

As I previously mentioned, we have a tendency to interpret the world in the manner that pleases us. When we see other people parking in a no-parking zone, and if we are frustrated about finding a parking spot, our emotions will want to interpret those parked cars as evidence that it is okay to park in those areas. The more cars that we see in the no parking zone, the more strongly our emotions will push us into believing that it is acceptable for us to join them.

This is a common problem with human societies. We could summarize it like this: when one of the more selfish, irresponsible, mentally ill, or arrogant people does something that is wrong, but which many other people would like to do, he encourages another person who is almost as badly behaved to join him. This encourages another person who is not quite so badly behaved to join them. Soon some of the more "ordinary" people are joining them, and eventually there may be so many people doing it that even the better behaved people come to the conclusion that it must be okay to do so.

This characteristic is most noticeable with children. Most children are "average" in regards to following rules, and a small minority are better behaved, and a small minority are badly behaved. When one of the badly behaved children does something that several of the other children would like to do but are hesitant to do, that badly behaved child encourages the others to join him. As soon as another child joins him, then another child is likely to join, and so on, and possibly all of them will eventually be doing what they normally would never do.

People noticed this characteristic many centuries ago. Some people created expressions about it, such as describing a badly behaved person as a "bad apple", and describing his effect on other people as "one bad apple can spoil the basket".

Photos of the lake at Disneyland that were taken before the child was killed by the alligator show lots of children in the water. If there had been security cameras around that lake, we would observe a particular pattern, and we would notice that it happens all over the world on a regular basis.

Specifically, we would notice that the well behaved parents and children were avoiding the water because they saw the sign that prohibited swimming. However, as soon as one of the badly behaved children went into the water, other children began following, and soon there were dozens of children in the water.

The majority of people are not leaders; they are followers. They do not create hazing rituals, clothing styles, or any new ideas. A small minority of the population is responsible for all of the changes to human culture, both good changes and bad changes.

The small minority that brings changes to culture are doing so for two distinctly different reasons:
1) Some of the people are adventurous.
2) Some of them are suffering from mental disorders.

The mentally disturbed people will often behave in idiotic manners, and occasionally the majority decides to mimic them. This results in some idiotic culture. For example, consider the hazing rituals of college fraternities.

If you took a person at random and told him to create a hazing ritual, he would create something harmless and fun because he wants to please other people. The mentally disturbed people, by comparison, will create some bizarre hazing rituals. For some examples, if they are homosexual, they might create hazing rituals that provide homosexuals with sexual titillation; if they have angry, violent personalities, they may create hazing rituals in which they can hurt people; and if they are "obnoxious", they are likely to devise hazing rituals that we would describe as obnoxious.

An unfortunate aspect of human behavior is that when mentally disturbed people are mixed into a group of "normal" people, those mentally disturbed people can exert a tremendous influence over the behavior of the group. The reason is because the majority are not likely to provide themselves with leadership. They are most likely to behave like sheep that follow somebody else, thereby allowing the group to be manipulated by an aggressive or mentally disturbed person. This can result in the normal people following rituals that they would never have created on their own, and which they would normally regard as stupid.

Another example of this is the custom that athletes have of spraying one another with champagne after receiving their prize. How did this ritual get started? It supposedly got started in 1967 when Dan Gurney, who had just won an automobile race, was standing on the podium and had been given a bottle of champagne. When he saw the owner of the team standing below him with some journalists, he thought it would be funny to shake the bottle of champagne and spray it on those people.

If he had sprayed the champagne with a nasty expression on his face, as if he was trying to get revenge on people he disliked, then people would have been appalled, but he was spraying people that he liked, and he did it while smiling and laughing. Although some people regarded his behavior as childish or obnoxious, there is something about spraying people with water that we find amusing. Children especially find it amusing to spray or splash water on themselves and other people, especially on hot days.

Furthermore, there are so many people who are amused by throwing food that comedians years ago would often throw pies into one another's faces.

Dan Gurney titillated a lot of people when he sprayed the champagne. Eventually some other athlete was standing on a podium, presented with a bottle of champagne, and decided to mimic Gurney. This encouraged another athlete to do it, and soon there were so many athletes doing it that it became a custom for athletes.

In 2015, a British racecar driver, Lewis Hamilton, won a race in China, and he celebrated by spraying champagne on a Chinese hostess, (photo below). To some people, he was an obnoxious jerk, but to others, such as the author of this page, he was a fun-loving man, and the people who complained about him were obnoxious jerks.

Whether a custom is fun or obnoxious depends upon your personality. I would say that the custom of spraying people with champagne is obnoxious. I can understand why athletes would want to spray themselves with water after an event, but not with a sticky liquid.

Furthermore, spraying champagne is a waste of resources. There are thousands of athletic events held around the world, which means that a lot of champagne is being wasted. It is idiotic for society to encourage people to waste a product that requires a lot of labor and resources to produce. If people want to spray each other with a liquid, they should be given carbonated water. When comedians threw pies at one another years ago, they had the sense to use low cost, whipped cream pies. They did not use the most expensive pies available.

Incidentally, the practice of giving champagne to the winners of an athletic contest brings up an issue that I pointed out in a previous document; namely, that many societies are pushing alcohol on us. Heroin, marijuana, and other drugs are considered dangerous, and millions of people around the world are frequently whining about drug dealers, but many of the people who whine about drugs are pushing alcohol at weddings, sports events, restaurants, and other social affairs.

Why should we give champagne to winners of a contest? Why not a bag of heroin?

My suggestion is to stop treating alcohol as a reward. Giving champagne to athletes is especially idiotic when you consider that most of the successful athletes seem to have less of an interest in becoming drunk than the ordinary people. Their lower interest in becoming drunk might be one of the reasons that they are more interested in spraying the champagne on other people rather than drinking it. The audiences of athletic events seem much more interested in alcohol than the athletes.

I would not be surprised if the practice of giving champagne to the winners of athletic contests began as a marketing gimmick by the champagne businesses to give publicity to champagne, and to create the impression that we should drink champagne whenever we want to celebrate something. If that is the reason for giving them champagne, then the athletes ought to be disgusted that the champagne businesses are using them for free advertising.

Our social customs are being altered and distorted by businesses, religions, and people who are obnoxious, violent, and mentally ill. We should occasionally review our customs and make sure we are doing something that makes sense.

The hazing rituals are another example of this. Everybody who is planning to go through a hazing ritual ought to critically analyze the ritual and pass judgment on whether it is a sensible custom, or an obnoxious or dangerous custom created by a homosexual, alcoholic, or lunatic.

Unfortunately, most people, especially when they are young, do not have the emotional ability to question hazing rituals. When we are young, we are much more interested in appeasing our particular peer group. This can cause people to participate in an idiotic ritual, and to deny doing it in order to prevent embarrassment to themselves and their friends.

For example, a university student who ended up in the hospital from an alcohol overdose denied that it was the result of a "butt-chugging" ritual in which his friends put a tube in his butt and then poured wine down the tube.

Who among us would even conceive of the idea of butt-chugging? And of those people, who would be interested in doing it?

Since many of the hazing rituals involve butts and alcohol, and most of the others are obnoxious, I suspect that most of them are created by homosexuals, alcoholics, and people with serious mental disorders. The college students who follow the hazing rituals believe that they are special people, but following a lunatic or an obnoxious homosexual is nothing to be proud of.

And how about "the elephant walk" custom? The people who participate in that custom don't want to provide photos or descriptions, but the photo below shows one of the less embarrassing variations. Mark Cuban says the photo shows his college rugby team. Cuban is the man in the upper left corner, wearing the letterman jacket. I would say that the elephant walk is yet another ritual that would appeal to homosexuals and lunatics.

The solution to this problem is to set standards for behavior and remove the badly behaved people. The aggressive homosexuals, lunatics, and violent people are detrimental to society. They should either be restricted to their own neighborhoods and schools, or they should be sent to their own cities. If they want to stick tubes into one another's butts and overdose on alcohol, let them do so, but they should not be allowed to push the normal people into doing those things.

The majority of people don't want to believe that they are analogous to helpless children who need to be protected from lunatics and homosexuals, but the truth is that they do need to be protected. The majority of people are followers, not leaders, especially when we are young. Most adults, and all children, need protection from the bad apples. Pretending otherwise is allowing people to be manipulated by the lowest quality members of society.

The rules that we describe as "etiquette" are changing haphazardly through time in unpredictable ways, just like our other customs. Instead of mindlessly following the etiquette of our ancestors, we should occasionally take a look at our etiquette and pass judgment on whether we are following sensible rules, or whether some of the rules are idiotic and should be altered or discarded.

An example is the way we use napkins when we eat. As with a lot of our customs, if we do a search on the issue of napkin etiquette, we find different people making different claims about what is correct.

Some people put a napkin in their lap, and some people spread it out over their lap. Some people put a napkin around their neck, such as the people in the photo to the right, who are at an annual dinner for the Escoffier Society. Some people, primarily babies and elderly people, wear bibs instead.

How did these customs develop? There is not much information on the history of napkins, but the Escoffier Society says that the custom of putting a napkin around our neck began in the 1700s among wealthy French men who were trying to protect their ruffled shirts from the food they were eating. At that time napkins were expensive, so they were used primarily by the wealthy people. Napkins were not common until the 1800s, when technology allowed businesses to produce napkins at a low cost.

Nobody seems to know why the custom developed of putting a napkin in our lap. When I was a child, somebody told me that we should not merely lay the napkin in our lap, rather, we should spread it over our lap so that it will catch the food that we spill. I don't know if I heard this from my parents, grandparents, teachers, or other children.

If you are a messy eater, a bib would do a better job of catching food than a napkin.

I could understand why parents wanted to put bibs on babies, and why young children were told to spread a napkin in their lap, but during my teenage years I realized that I had never once spilled any food into my napkin, so why was I continuing to spread a napkin in my lap? And why were so many adults doing it? How many adults are so sloppy that they dribble food into their lap? Why is everybody following this custom even though most adults have no need for it?

It is possible that the custom of spreading a napkin in our lap got started by adults who were sloppy, or who had sloppy children. Its original purpose might have been to protect clothing from food. However, some people don't spread the napkin in their lap; they merely put it there to hide it, and I can think of two reasons why this custom would have gotten started:

1) So that the people did not have to look at napkins while they were eating, which makes the dining table more attractive.

2) To clear some of the items from the table. Many families today have only one or two children, but before there was birth control, families were larger, causing the dinner table to be more crowded. By moving the napkins to their lap at the beginning of the dinner, they would clear some of the items from the table, making it less cluttered.

As we grow up, we pick up bits and pieces of culture from other people, and we tend to follow the culture without asking why. When somebody asks us why we are doing something, such as putting a napkin in our lap, we don't know the answer, but it is unlikely that we will respond with the phrase, "I don't know". We are almost certain to create an answer. This characteristic can result in parents giving their children idiotic answers to questions.

Animals do not understand how ignorant they are. If animals could speak to us, they would never say the phrase, "I don't know". Animals are designed to react to every problem by quickly processing whatever information they have available at the time. Animals do not have any desire to do research or discuss issues. An animal's mind assumes that it knows everything it needs to know.

Humans behave in the exact same manner. None of our brains have a meter that lets us know how much information we have on a particular subject. We have no idea if we know a lot of information about an issue, or if we are extremely ignorant about it.

Our natural tendency is to assume we know all we need to know, and to answer questions by processing whatever information is available to us at the time. We have a resistance to saying "I don't know," and "I need to do some research". This characteristic causes us to create idiotic explanations for our culture; the creation of the universe; and what happens to us when we die.

In order to make our modern societies more pleasant, we have to stop mindlessly following culture and start analyzing it. We need to ensure that our etiquette, recreational activities, sports, marital ceremonies, and other customs are beneficial.

For example, in regards to the issue of putting napkins in our lap, I would say that it is silly to teach adults to spread a napkin in their lap in order to catch food. Only the sloppy adults need to wear bibs or spread napkins in their lap. Other adults should be told to put their napkin in their lap simply to hide it so that we don't have to look at their napkin.

At the moment, we are teaching customs without providing any explanations for them, and this allows idiotic customs to persist for centuries. For example, at this website, we are told what to do with a napkin at the dinner table, but there is no explanation for any of the rules.

Some rules do not need an explanation, such as the rule that we should unfold the napkin smoothly rather than snapping it open or shaking it open. Most people can understand that it would be irritating to sit at a table with people who using their napkin like a whip.

However the customs that are arbitrary should either have an explanation, or we should consider changing them to something that is more intuitive. For example, in regards to when a person should take the napkin off the table and put it in his lap, that website says:

If there is a host or hostess, wait for him or her to take their napkin off the table and place it in his or her lap. (An exception to this rule is buffet-style meals, where you should unfold your napkin when you start eating.)

There is nothing wrong with following arbitrary rules, but arbitrary rules have to be memorized because they cannot be deduced; they are not "common sense". When a society has thousands of arbitrary rules, we create a burden for parents and children because it requires teaching the children to memorize thousands of rules. If the benefit of following arbitrary rules outweighed the burden, then it would be justifiable, but there is no benefit. There is only a burden.

It would be better to design rules of etiquette to be more sensible. This will reduce the burden on parents and children, and it reduces the number of times parents have to reprimand their children for not following the rules.

For example, children could be told that we put our napkin in our lap simply because most people don't want to look at napkins, but we don't have to specify when a person should put his napkin in his lap. Whether a person does it when he first sits down at the table, or whether he does it when he starts to eat, what difference does it make? If our lives became better when people followed a particular rule, then it would make sense to follow it, but our lives are not affected by when a person puts his napkin in his lap. By reducing the arbitrary rules, we simplify our lives, and we reduce the number of times people reprimand each other.

The rule that specifies when we should put a napkin in our lap reminds me of the people who have obsessive-compulsive disorders. I would not be surprised if some of the arbitrary rules that we follow are the result of OCD people. For example, some of the OCD people insist upon arranging their shoes against a wall in a very particular order, or arranging a dinner table in a very specific pattern. They follow a lot of idiotic and arbitrary rules. Perhaps some of the OCD people have had a significant influence on our table etiquette.

Some of the people who suffering from OCD are amusing, to a certain extent, but they should not be influencing our culture. If you have never seen people with OCD, you might find it interesting to watch a British television series in which some people who are suffering from a cleanliness disorder spend a few days helping incredibly sloppy people clean their homes. (Here is one of those shows in which a woman will not let her husband or children sit on a couch because she doesn't want it to get dirty.)

In one of those television programs is a man who arranges the items in his house along 45° angles. In another program is a man who wipes things clean in a back-and-forth motion, rather than a circular or arbitrary motion, and by an even number of movements, rather than an odd number of movements. If those type of people were to influence culture, they would give us a lot of arbitrary, iditioc rules.

Every society's culture is drifting about aimlessly, and it is influenced by businesses, religions, government officials, crime networks, people with OCD, obnoxious people, homosexuals, mentally ill people, and criminals. The "normal" people do not have much of an influence over our culture. The normal people are following culture, not setting it.

When we don't take control of our culture, we have the same problem I mentioned in Part 1 of this series in which I pointed out that a leaderless nation is easily manipulated by crime networks and other organizations. Specifically, when we do not take control of our culture, then our culture has no leadership, and this allows it to be influenced by criminals, businesses, religions, and lunatics, most of whom are a bad influence.

Every society should take control of its culture by occasionally reviewing it to ensure that it is sensible, and changing or eliminating the customs that are not. We should follow customs that are beneficial, not the senseless or obnoxious customs of lunatics, businesses, or religious fanatics.

When I was a child, my parents told us to hold glasses with two hands because we had a tendency to drop the glass if we tried using only one hand. The problem with most people's homes is that they only have one size of glasses, plates, and other eating utensils; namely, the size for adults. Some parents have a few baby spoons or cups for a baby, but they don't have eating utensils for children of different sizes.

The result is that children are expected to use glasses that were designed for an adult's hands, which often results in the glass falling onto the table or floor. Parents either ignore this problem, or they scold their children for spilling the liquid, but it would be better if we reacted to the problem by analyzing it. This would bring us to the conclusion that we should provide children with different types of glasses and utensils.

In other documents I suggested a city in which the homes do not have kitchens or dining rooms. Everybody would get their meals for free from restaurants. In that type of city, the restaurants do not operate on a free enterprise system. The government would be in control of the economic system, and this allows people to operate restaurants that would be impractical in a free enterprise system, and to operate the restaurants in a manner that nobody in a free enterprise system would want to do, such as restricting who they serve.


For example, each restaurant could be designed to serve a particular category of people, such as: mothers with babies, children, young teenagers, older teenagers, adults, and the elderly. The restaurants designed for young children would have utensils, tables, and chairs specifically designed for their smaller bodies, although they would also have some larger items in case their parents wanted to eat with them.

Furthermore, the utensils designed for children would be designed to be functional, rather than to appease parents or children. For example, the glasses that children drink from could have handles on them, or two handles, one for each hand, if that type of drinking cup turns out to reduce the problem of spilling liquids. If the children complain that they want to use the same style of glass that the adults use, the adults should have the self control to explain to their children that children need different types and sizes of utensils. Adults should provide guidance to the children, not pander to them.

Until recently, it was difficult for people to manufacture eating utensils, chairs, and tables. Furthermore, when people have to eat their meals in their own home, it is impractical for people to have a variety of different sizes of utensils, chairs, and tables.

However, when we live in a city in which none of the homes have kitchens or dining rooms, the city does not have to put any resources into private kitchens or dining rooms, or into the packaging and distribution of food for consumers, and so it becomes practical to provide the city with a wide variety of beautiful restaurants that have different sizes of chairs, tables, and utensils.

	Adults would have a wide variety of food and decor to make life more interesting.		Restaurants for children would be more simple and easy to clean.

Another example of a custom that we should consider changing is our method of greeting people. Animals and humans seem to have a natural tendency to go through some type of display when they meet somebody. We don't want to remain motionless when we meet somebody; we have a craving to do something to acknowledge their presence. However, with humans, our greeting displays have been changing haphazardly as a result of the influence by lunatics, OCD people, religions, and misfits.

Some people shake hands, some bow or curtsey, and some simulate kisses on the cheek. Some people nod their head, which could be described as a minimal style of bowing. Some raise their hand, and some people do a fist bump. When men wear hats, some will tip their hat.

My opinion is that the custom of shaking hands should be eliminated. Women and children do not enjoy that custom, and a lot of men have slimy or dirty hands. People with allergies often have mucus on their hands. Children often have messy hands, and men who have to work with their hands, such as mechanics and farmers, often have dirty hands, or are wearing gloves.

I would also eliminate the custom of greeting a person by hugging and simulating kisses on the cheek. This method of greeting can cause a lot of problems since women don't like being touched, and not many men want to simulate kisses with another man. Hugging and kissing should be for people who are truly affectionate with each other, not as a generic greeting method.

The Japanese practice of bowing makes more sense as a greeting method, except that I think their custom has evolved too much detail, such as specifying that the people low on the hierarchy must bow farther down. In a business or military, the people have to be aware of who is higher up in the hierarchy while they are on the job, but during our leisure time, I think it would be better if we ignored our status and treated people more equally.

When we have a greeting method that requires contact between the people, such as handshakes, fist bumps, or simulated kissing, then both people must follow the same greeting method, and at the same time, or it becomes awkward for the person who starts the process and then discovers the other person is not yet ready, or has chosen to do some other greeting method, or isn't doing anything.

It would be better to have a non-contact greeting custom, and to not care if the other person chooses a different non-contact greeting. If we follow that practice, then a person would choose between any of the non-contact methods, such as saying something, such as "hello"; a bow or curtsy; a nod of his head; putting up his hand; or tipping his hat. We should not care if the other person chooses a different greeting method, or does nothing.

With this attitude towards greeting customs, we allow each person to choose a greeting method according to their mood, and according to what they are doing at the time, such as whether they are sitting or standing, eating or working. This will result in less awkwardness.

Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and other social media networks have encouraged tens of thousands of people to register to vote for the 2016 election. In Oregon, a group of people created the Oregon Student Association and the Bus Project to encourage people to register to vote. A few years ago that group in Oregon created the National Voter Registration Day to encourage registration, which is another example of how organizations are creating holidays to manipulate us, not to improve our lives.

These organizations claim that they are encouraging voter registration because they want to help us, but the reason they want more people to vote is because most of the people who have not been voting are more likely to vote for Democrats than Republicans. Most of the people who are pushing for voter registration are frightened that Donald Trump will be elected president.

To further improve the chances that newly registered people will vote for Democrats, the social media sites have been promoting the same Jewish propaganda that the news journalists have been promoting. For example, they promote Black Lives Matter, the feminists, Hillary Clinton, Israel, and hatred of Muslims. The social media sites are also suppressing and censoring the same information that the news journalists are suppressing and censoring, such as the information that Jews are responsible for the 9/11 attack.

The social media networks and other organizations are behaving like Pied Pipers who gather groups of gullible sheeple and deceive them with propaganda. An organization needs leaders to protect the members from this type of abuse, but the United States doesn't have "leaders". We have "submissive representatives", most of whom are following orders from Jews.

The Jews are hoping that the majority of people are so sheep-like that the voters will continue to elect Jewish puppets into government office. They are hoping that the minority of us who are aware of what the Jews are doing is so small, disorganized, unable to compromise on policies, and/or discouraged that we will not be able to stop the Jews.

The majority of people are being abused by crime networks, homosexuals, and obnoxious people. The majority of people need to be protected from the social media, the journalists, the scientists who are pushing carbon taxes, and the lunatics who are encouraging obnoxious hazing rituals.

The majority of people need to accept the fact that they are very sheeplike, and that children are especially easy to manipulate and intimidate. One of the reasons we need a government is to protect people, especially children, from the people who are abnormally aggressive, dishonest, sexually disturbed, and mentally ill.

The propaganda coming from the Jews is so simplistic and obvious that the majority of people ought to be ashamed of themselves for not being able to see it. Another example occurred after the debate between Clinton and Trump on 26 Sep 2016. Although I have not watched the debate, I looked at some of the remarks afterwards.

For example, in this article, Philip Bump complained that Trump denied that Russia had hacked into the Democratic National Committee computer. This is an idiotic complaint for lots of reasons, such as:

1) Nobody has yet proven that Russia did it. Philip Bump references this article as proof, but that article admits it needs more evidence. It has such remarks as:
"It is time for the United States (and the United Kingdom) to pull their weight: by publishing more evidence."
If it has already been proven, why do we need more evidence?

2) If Russia is responsible, we should thank them. If Russia were to send people to the United States to start forest fires, then we should complain about them, but if Russia were to expose crimes or lies occurring within the Democratic National Committee, or any other group of Americans, we should thank them for their work.

Donald Trump should have responded, "I have not seen any proof that Russia is responsible for hacking the DNC computers, but if such proof is provided, we should thank the Russians for showing us how deceptive and diabolical the DNC is. We might want to ask Russia to hack the computers of George Soros, or provide training classes for our FBI managers."

3) If the Russians were responsible, it might be Jewish Russians. Furthermore, those Russian Jews might have been working with Jews in America, Britain, and other nations. In such a case, it would be more accurate to say that the hacking was by "Jews", not by "Russia". Maybe it was by Jews who wanted Bernie Sanders to become president.

4) Anybody who realizes that the Jews set up the Muslims to be blamed for the 9/11 attack and other false flag operations, should wonder if the Jews set up the Russians up to take the blame for the DNC hack. We would be fools to believe a Jew's analysis of a crime.

Most of the criticism of Donald Trump are insults rather than intelligent analyses. Most of us have no idea what is going on in regards to the hacking of the DNC computers, but the Jews are hoping that by insulting Trump, the sheeple will mimic their insults. This technique is successful because most people resist thinking.

When the Jews repeatedly refer to Trump as sexist, anti-Semitic, and racist, many of the sheeple will dislike Trump simply because we have a tendency to mimic other people. The journalists are not educating us about Trump; rather, they are trying to train us to hate him.

The Jews can also manipulate us with more complex tricks, such as when I was interviewed by George Noory on the Coast-To-Coast radio show. In the beginning I was talking only to Noory, but about halfway through the interview he brought another person into the conversation to criticize me, and they adjusted the volume so that I could barely hear them, and they could not hear me too well, so I spoke louder, which then gave them the opportunity to tell me to stop shouting and calm down. My father was fooled by them into thinking that I really was overly excited and needed to calm down.

Apparently the Jews used a variation of that trick with Trump during the debate on 26 September 2016. Although I did not watch the debate, there are clips on the Internet that show him "sniffling". From what I can hear, we are listening to him inhale, and the reason I say this is because I can also hear his lips separating and coming together, which is a sign that somebody set the microphone to be too sensitive. This problem sometimes happens accidentally with newscasters and singers, but I suspect that it was deliberate during that debate.

Furthermore, I suspect that the Jews told some other Jews that they were going to do this, and to be ready to flood the Internet with remarks that describe the noise as "sniffling" rather than as "inhaling". The anonymity of the Internet makes it impossible for us to know who is posting messages, and this makes it easy for groups of Jews, businesses, and religions to become Pied Pipers who manipulate thousands of sheeple.

Incidentally, many people are extracting the portions of the debate in which we can hear Trump inhale, but they do not also include the sections where we can hear his lips and tongue. These edited videos are deceptive, but how many of the sheeple realize this?

Different people have different-sized passageways in their nose and throat, and as a result, each of us produces a slightly different noise when we breathe, and our noises are at different levels. For all we know, the Jews discovered that Trump makes more noise when breathing than Clinton, and so they decided to take advantage of it.

The majority of people should get off of their pedestal and admit that they are easily deceived and manipulated. Every nation's government, schools, and media have been taken over by Jewish and other crime networks because the majority of people are easily fooled, intimidated, and pushed into doing things that they don't want to do.

The majority of people are hurting themselves by pretending that they are capable of coping with this complex world. They need help; they need leadership. They need a government that will protect them from the minority of abusive and mentally disturbed people, and the crime networks.

Although we can buy T-shirts to discourage butt-chugging and other idiotic behavior, we are not going to protect ourselves from the obnoxious people, criminals, or lunatics simply by wearing T-shirts, or by creating public service announcements that discourage idiotic behavior, or by putting warnings on bottles of wine that butt-chugging is dangerous.

We are not going to solve the problem by punishing the butt-chuggers, lunatics, or crime networks, either. We need a government that will suppress or exile the people who are a bad influence rather than let them manipulate the "normal" people. We need a government that will also arrest the dishonest journalists, professors, and scientists.

It is difficult for us to deal with badly behaved children because our emotions want us to pamper and protect children, not pass judgment on which of them are a bad influence and need to be put into their own classrooms or neighborhoods.

To make the situation more complicated, there is no dividing line between the people who are well behaved and those who are badly behaved. Furthermore, if we were to classify some children as "bad apples" who should be separated from the other children, the parents of those children are likely to become defensive and angry.

If a city had a policy to removing the badly behaved children and restricting them to separate classrooms, schools, recreational areas, or neighborhoods, there would be lots of arguments among the adults in regards to whose children were badly behaved, and there would be arguments about what sort of restrictions the children should have. Although this problem is complicated and does not have a simple solution, we should not ignore an issue simply because it requires some intellectual effort and self-control.

Many people will claim that it would be cruel to separate the badly behaved children, but as I have mentioned many times, I'm not proposing something that we don't already do. People all around the world and all throughout history have been trying to implement a policy like this, but they have been doing so as individuals, rather than as a society, and that has prevented them from achieving much success. Their lack of success in turn makes it difficult to realize that people want this type of policy, and are constantly trying to implement this type of policy.

When we select homes, for example, we do not merely consider whether we like the house. Rather, we look at the people who are living in the neighborhood, and we pass judgment on whether we want to live among those people. We also pass judgment on the schools in the area. We have a strong desire to pass judgment on other people's behavior, and to associate with people that we respect and have something in common with.

Most people are unsuccessful in finding a neighborhood that they are truly satisfied with because there are only a certain number of homes available at the time we look for a house, and most of us have financial limitations that restrict the neighborhoods that we can afford. Also, it is time-consuming and expensive to move from one home to another. Transportation difficulties also cause people to look for areas that will be near their jobs.

However, if we were living in a City of Castles, the city would be designed with an excess of homes so that people could easily move from one home to another, or one neighborhood to another. Since the homes would be free, nobody would have to worry about mortgages, landlords, rental agreements, or leases. This type of city would provide people with a freedom that nobody today has; namely, the freedom to move to a home next to their friends so that they can live among people that they enjoy.

In a City of Castles, the apartment buildings, factories, and office buildings would be clusters of tall buildings connected by underground trains, and that type of transportation system would make it much easier for people to get from one cluster to another compared to the cities of today. This means that the people would not have to be so concerned about finding a home close to where they were working. No matter which apartment cluster they lived in, they would be able to get to their job relatively quickly.

It is not cruel to allow people to discriminate against one another in neighborhoods, schools, office buildings, social clubs, or recreational centers. This is our natural behavior, and we should make it an official policy rather than pretend we don't want to do it.

We even prefer to separate from one another during recreational activities. When we decide to play a game of volleyball, ride a bicycle, take a walk in the park, or go kayaking or snorkeling, we want to do so with people who have similar desires and abilities.

We will not improve our recreational activities by forcing people of different ages, athletic abilities, and desires to mix together at random. Actually, mixing people of different ages and athletic abilities in the same recreational activity can result in injuries. The melting pot philosophy is unrealistic for recreational activities.

It is also unrealistic for other social activities. For example, imagine applying the melting pot philosophy to music. In such a case, all music concerts would be a random mixture of music. Who would benefit from that? Who is harmed when we have different types of music concerts?

If a society suffered as a result of people segregating and discriminating against one another, then we would be able to justify forcing people to mix together, but the history of the human race shows us that the opposite is true. We struggle to segregate and discriminate against one another. This is our natural behavior. Forcing people to mix together causes fights, loneliness, and frustration.

The word "discrimination" has a bad meaning, but we should change that. There is nothing wrong with discriminating against people, animals, foods, clothing styles, or anything else. We are not cruel when we discriminate against one another. We are cruel only when we are abusive or dishonest with one another. As long as we are cooperative, considerate, and honest with one another, we should not be ashamed or embarrassed that we have personal preferences.

In a City of Castles, it would be very easy for people to find a neighborhood that they enjoy, and it would be easy for the schools to put the badly behaved children into their own classrooms. Adults and children who are extremely annoying could be restricted to their own neighborhoods, restaurants, social clubs, parks, and swimming pools. This is not a cruel policy. This is what we all wish we could do, and we are trying to do it right now. We may as well make it an official policy and design the city and the school system to provide us with this freedom.

In every generation, regardless of whether it is a group of animals or humans, and regardless of which nation or era we look at, half of the children will be "below average" in whatever behavioral characteristic we look at. A third of the population of children will be at the bottom third, and 5% of the population will be at the bottom 5%. We should design our society to deal with this issue rather than pretend that there are no badly behaved children.

In our schools today, we are separating children into different classes according to their abilities to do the school work, but we should go further and separate children according to their behavior so that the children who are a bad influence can be put into their own classes.

We should also stop promoting the philosophy that boys and girls are unisex creatures and face the fact that there are physical and mental differences between us. By accepting these obvious facts, schools will be able to experiment with separating the boys from the girls, and separating the children who are a bad influence.

By allowing neighborhoods, schools, and organizations to discriminate against people, most people will be able to find a neighborhood that they feel comfortable in. There will be a small group of people that nobody wants, but those particular people will be unwanted no matter how we design society. We are not going to solve the problem of unwanted people by giving them pity, or by forcing ourselves to accept them as neighbors.

It might seem cruel to have to push the unwanted people into a neighborhood that is full of other unwanted people, but it is cruel to force us to live together because we do not like each other. We irritate - sometimes torment - one another.

None of us should feel guilty that some people are born with such serious physical or mental problems that they cannot enjoy life or fit into society. It is sad that some people are suffering, but it is not our fault that the process of creating new life is so imperfect that many of the chidren become misfits, criminals, or lunatics. We are not solving the problem by forcing ourselves to live among people who irritate us. They do not enjoy living with us, and we do not enjoy living with them. We tend to ignore and irritate one another, so we may as well separate into different neighborhoods.

A society has to make decisions about where to put fences and warning signs, but no society is yet making intelligent decisions. We are instead following our irrational emotional cravings. For example, when a child is killed by an alligator, our emotions are triggered because we have strong cravings to protect children, and because we are frightened of alligators. This causes a lot of people to complain that we should do something to protect children from alligators. However, alligators are an insignificant threat to American children.

More American children die and are injured by dogs than by alligators, but how many of the people who were whining that Disneyland should protect children from alligators are also complaining about the dangers of dogs?

This website claims that there were more than 15,000 insurance claims filed for dog bites during the year 2015. That is not the total number of dog bites during 2015; that is only the number of insurance claims that were filed for dog bites.

A lot of people are killed or injured by dogs every year in the United States, but nobody is complaining about these attacks, or about how those attacks are wasting a lot of time and money for a lot of people. Why do we care so much about attacks by alligators but not attacks by dogs? I think the reason is because a significant percentage of the population today has a very strong attraction to dogs, but we have a fear of alligators.

There are many millions of lonely people who are using dogs as substitutes for children or friends. Those people do not regard dogs as "animals"; they regard dogs as friends, and in some extreme cases, as sex partners. Those people want to protect dogs, not be protected from dogs.

If the boy who had been killed by an alligator at Disneyland had been killed by a dog, his death would have been ignored by most people. Actually, it is possible that some people would not have believed that the boy had been killed by a dog. It is possible that the boy's parents would have been arrested for murder. The reason I say this is because there appears to have been such a case already, specifically, the case of April Loveless. A television documentary describes this case.

This case is a frightening example of what happens when police departments are allowed to keep evidence a secret; specifically, when they are allowed to hide the photos that show the original crime scene. To summarize the event, the parents claimed that their young daughter was attacked by one of their dogs, but the coroner who did the autopsy on the girl said that the cuts on the girl's leg were so clean and smooth that only a knife could have made them. The girl also had mysterious scratches and punctures on her body, and the police and coroner claimed that her parents had tortured her before killing her.

The parents were convicted of murder and put into jail as a result of the coroner's insistence that the girl's wounds were made by a knife, not a dog.

While the parents were in jail, they continued looking for an investigator who would analyze the case more thoroughly. Eventually they found somebody who looked at the original photos of the girl's wounds, and he noticed they were jagged, just like a dog bite. He discovered that the girl was alive when the police had arrived, and they took her to the hospital, where a team of surgeons tried to save her life by cleaning the wound and cutting the jagged sections away. However, nobody told the coroner that the girl had been through surgery, so when he saw the clean cuts, he correctly deduced that her flesh had been cut by a knife. Therefore, he wrote that the cause of death was that she had been cut by a knife.

It is possible that the police knew that a dog had attacked April Loveless, and that they deliberately kept that information a secret from the coroner because they wanted to convict the parents of murder because they suspected that the parents were involved with other crimes, but they could not find enough evidence to convict them of those other crimes. However, it is also possible that this was just another example of how secrecy hurts honest people.

You might respond that the secrecy regarding the April Loveless case is unusual, but secrecy is typical, not unusual. Most people are so paranoid of having information made available to the public that schools, hospitals, doctors, and lots of other people are routinely keeping enormous amounts of information a secret.

Furthermore, there are so many dishonest people in our police departments and courts that they often hide information simply to cover their crimes. The FBI and police agencies are still hiding a lot of information about the 9/11 attack, for example, and I suspect they are hiding information about the murder of OJ Simpson's ex-wife, Nicole Brown. They are also hiding information about the mysterious deaths of Robin Williams, Michael Jackson, and Whitney Houston.

In regards to Robin Williams, there are some news reports that say he was cremated before the police could conduct an autopsy, whereas other reports claim that he was given an autopsy. There were some news reports that he committed suicide because he was suffering severe financial problems, whereas other reports claim that his family members were fighting over how to divide his tremendous wealth.

Did Williams have an autopsy or not? Was he on the verge of bankruptcy or not? Why are the police hiding this information from us? Who benefits by keeping this information a secret?

Before the Internet existed, it would have been difficult and expensive for the police to provide us with information about crimes, and for the schools, doctors, and other people to provide information about us, but the Internet changes the situation dramatically. The police agencies could put a lot of information about crimes on the Internet. All of this information could go into a database that everybody has access to. Our schools, doctors, and other people could also be putting data about us onto the Internet.

The 9/11 attack was exposed as a fraud fairly quickly because the Internet provided people around the world with easy access to information about it. Having access to information helps us understand the world. Secrecy helps criminals, not honest people.

Getting back to the boy who was killed by the alligator at Disneyland, it should be noted that there are a lot of children killed and seriously injured in automobile accidents, but nobody complains that we should do something about our cities and transportation systems to reduce the deaths and injuries.

If the boy who was killed by an alligator had died in a car accident on the trip home from Disneyland, nobody would have cared. His death would not have been reported by the news agencies.

Children are dying and permanently injured every day for various reasons, but only some of those deaths and injuries are reported by the news journalists. How are we deciding which death is significant, and which to ignore? How do we decide where to put our resources in reducing deaths? For example, why did people decide that Disneyland should put resources into building a fence around the lake and creating new warning signs, but we do not put any effort into designing cities that will reduce transportation accidents?

The reason people become upset when a child is killed by an alligator while ignoring thousands of other deaths is because most people are following their emotions rather than their intellect. It is extremely unusual for a person to be killed by an alligator, and so that type of event will stimulate our emotions much more than an event which is occurring every few minutes, such as a traffic accident. Also, alligators stimulate fear in us, whereas we are attracted to automobiles. Furthermore, we have more of a concern for the death of a child than the death of an adult, so our natural tendency is to become more upset when a child is killed than when an adult is killed.

By following their emotions, most people become upset over insignificant issues, and they ignore their more significant problems.

When we select leaders for our government, businesses, legal system, schools, and other organizations, we should look for people who show signs of having self-control. We should avoid the people who become hysterical over meaningless issues, such as death by alligators.

If a person in a leadership position dismisses a child's death by alligator as insignificant, many people will respond that the person is cruel or coldhearted, but he may simply be showing signs of self-control and intelligence.

A democracy promotes the attitude that the majority of people know what is best, and that we should follow their guidance, but in reality, the majority of people are not good role models. The majority of people are overwhelmed with modern society. They need guidance. They do not make intelligent decisions.

When a problem occurs, such as when a child is killed by an alligator, we need our leaders to provide us with intelligent guidance, not hysterical, emotional reactions.

In September 2016, some neighbors of the family whose child was killed by an alligator arranged an event at a school where hundreds of people got together with balloons to celebrate what would have been the child's third birthday. Some of the people knew the family, but others were strangers.

After the parents of the child spoke to the crowd, they released 5000 balloons into the air. (I suppose they were helium balloons, thereby wasting helium and creating 5000 more bits of trash when the balloons finally fell to the ground.) Imagine if people behaved like this every time a child died in a car accident or by a dog.

The news reports about this event mentioned that the children of one of the neighbors was so affected by the death that they were asking their parents such questions as, "When are we going to die?", and "How long are we going to live?" Another woman told a journalist that she was amazed at how well the parents were coping with such an incredible tragedy.

Parents whose children die from cancer, automobile accidents, tornadoes, or serial killers don't get nearly as much publicity or pity. When a child dies from an automobile accident, or is raped and murdered, we don't hear reports about children asking their parents, "When are we going to die?" or, "When are we going to get raped?", and we don't hear people praise parents for coping with the death.

Why did these particular parents get so much publicity and pity? I think it is because it is unusual for a child to be killed by an alligator, and because people are frightened of alligators. The child's death stimulated our emotions. Many parents reacted to the death by talking about it in front of their children, but not in a serious manner. Rather, they discussed it in a hysterical manner. Their children mimicked the hysteria.

If parents were to talk about automobile accidents with the same hysteria that they talk about alligators, then they would frighten their children into believing that they could be killed in an automobile accident.

What would you think if the parents living next to you were so stupid that they believed that there were monsters under the beds, and they were frightening their children with stories of monsters to such an extent that the children had trouble sleeping through the night? Also, imagine that your children were becoming frightened of the monsters as a result of hearing those children worry about the monsters. You would undoubtedly regard those parents as idiots and a bad influence on children.

What is the difference between parents who frighten their children about monsters under the bed, and parents who frighten their children into believing that alligators are going to kill them? In this modern world, people need to exert some self-control and push themselves into thinking about what to do rather than following their stupid emotions.

If Disneyland executives had told the parents of the dead child to shut up and deal with the death, and that it is their own fault for not following the warning signs, they would have caused a lot of people to become angry with them, but that is what the executives should have done. We need leaders to stand up to the majority of people, not pander to them.

The parents of the child killed by the alligator have gotten involved to some extent with the charity Omaha Gives. Was that their decision? Or did the charities contact them and convince them to do it?

The fact that the parents became involved with charities, and that they get a lot of publicity from journalists, and that they are getting a lot of help and pity from neighbors and strangers, makes me wonder how many of the people who have been contacting them, or showing concern about the child's death, are truly interested in helping them deal with the death of their child, and how many are actually looking for ways to exploit the child's death to promote their charities, or to promote themselves.

The charities and people who want to help that family remind me of all of the men who wanted to marry Anna Nicole Smith. The news reports about Smith gave me the impression that the people and lawyers who were falling in love with her were interested only in her money. Although it is natural for a woman to be attracted to a weathly man, it is not natural for a man to choose a wife according to her wealth.

A lot of men have encountered wealthy women, and although those encounters might stimulate fantasies of having a wealthy wife, if a normal man does not feel any attraction to a wealthy woman, his fantasies of being her husband will quickly fade and he will continue on with his life. The men who will pursue a woman simply because she is wealthy are abnormal men, especially if they keep the pursuit going for years. Those men could be described as parasitic. They might be dangerous, also, because their craving for money might be so extreme that they might consider killing the woman to get access to her money.

When a person wins a lottery, or when a person becomes wealthy or famous, many people who had no interest in him will suddenly develop an interest in becoming his friend or spouse, or they want to show him some wonderful investment opportunities. It should be obvious that their motives are to get some of his wealth, not become his friend.

We should face the fact that humans are selfish creatures who are constantly looking for ways to titillate our emotions. We should face the fact that we are monkeys, and we should design society to dampen our crude qualities and promote our better qualities. I've given examples in other documents, such as providing everybody with the basic necessities for free so that everybody is more equal in terms of material wealth and homes.

We have cravings to be extremely wealthy, but I don't think that type of social environment provides us with the most pleasant life. The wealthy people believe that it provides them with a wonderful life, but it provides them with disadvantages, also. For example, their extreme wealth stimulates the parasitic and dishonest people into pursuing them and their children, which means that the wealthy people have to be careful about who they trust. How many of the men who were pursuing Anna Nicole Smith, Ivanka Trump, and other wealthy women, would have pursued them if they had been "ordinary" women?

Wealthy people also have to be concerned about kidnappings and murders, including by their own family members. Many wealthy people have been cheated or killed by their spouse, children, and relatives. Some wealthy people have so many security devices, security guards, and bodyguards that they live more like a prisoner than a free person.

When a society encourages extreme differences of material wealth, it also encourages people to get involved with competitions for wealth. In addition, this type of environment stimulates anger, envy, pouting, and hatred among the poor people, and arrogance among the wealthy people.

By comparison, if we create a society in which people are provided with the basic necessities for free and everybody has more equal levels of material wealth and homes, nobody will have to worry about other people trying to exploit him for his wealth, or murder him for his wealth. Furthermore, the people will not get into idiotic competitions for material wealth, so they will hopefully do something more useful with their time, such as competing to improve society, or enjoying our beautiful planet and our technology.

The concept about making people more equal in terms of material wealth also applies in regards to fame. We should treat people more equally in regards to providing people with attention and praise. For example, government officials and business executives should be regarded as employees who are working with us for the benefit of the team; we should not regard them as Kings and Queens. Likewise, the people who become famous for their entertainment abilities should be regarded as talented people, not as "stars" or "celebrities". They should not be given special treatment simply because they have some unusual talent.

If we pamper certain people, we create the same type of unpleasant social environment as when we allow an extreme difference in material wealth. Specifically, it encourages people to compete with one another for fame; it causes some people to struggle to become friends or the spouse of a famous person; it encourages the arrogance of the famous people; and it stimulates anger, disgust, pity, and other inappropriate emotions in the people who fail to become famous.

When a child is killed by an alligator, our leaders should analyze the incident to see if there is something they can do to reduce the problem, but the family should be treated the same as other families whose children have died from more common events. We should not reward a family with fame or money simply because their child had an unusual death.

We are currently designing society for the worst behaved people, and this is one of the reasons that so many people have a tendency to disregard warning signs and laws. For example, there are warnings on plastic bags that inform us that the plastic bag is not a toy, and that we should not give the bags to the children to play with. Who needs that type of warning message?

When a society is dedicated to feeling sorry for the wretched refuse and the huddled masses, we create lots of laws and warning messages that seem senseless to normal people. This can cause the normal people to get into the habit of disregarding the warnings.

For another example, consider how many times you've installed software and you were forced to click a box to agree to some legal agreement. Do you read those legal agreements?

The United States has created so many idiotic warning messages and legal documents that all of us seem to be in the habit of ignoring them. We could describe this as the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" effect.

It would be more sensible for a society to design its laws, warning messages, user's manuals, and other documents for the better behaved people. In that type of a society, there would not be any warning messages on plastic bags or cups of coffee; we would not put fences around lakes simply because there are some alligators or snakes in the water; we would not have to click agreement boxes to install software; and parks would not have warning signs about the dangers of peacocks.

In that type of society, there would be no warnings about issues that society decided a "normal" person does not need. This would cause people to realize that when they encounter a warning sign or a fence, it was put there for a significant reason. We would get into the habit of reading the warning signs, and paying attention to them.

About an hour before the child was killed by an alligator at Disneyland, one of the hotel guests had seen an alligator along the shore, and he warned one of the employees of Disneyland that an alligator was near the people. Some people might respond that the Disneyland employees should have immediately warned people of the danger, but should they have?

Since alligators live in the lake, how are the Disneyland employees supposed to know when to warn people about alligators? If they warn people too often, they create the "Boy Who Cried Wolf effect" in which people ignore their warnings.

Imagine if you were a Park Ranger in Death Valley, and a tourist tells you, "I just noticed that the sun is extremely bright today, so people should be warned to wear sunscreen and carry extra water with them!"

Or how about if you were a waiter at a restaurant and one of your customers said to you, "Your meals are very tasty, so you should warn people not to eat too much or they might become overweight." Would you recommend that the restaurant post a warning sign?

Some people have already tried to file lawsuits against restaurants for causing them to become obese. When we hurt ourselves, we prefer to find a way to blame our problems on somebody else, such as by accusing somebody of not properly warning us of the dangers, or of not making a barrier tall enough to prevent us from climbing over it.

Unfortunately, if we warn everybody of every possible danger, and if we put tall barriers around everything that is dangerous, people will become so accustomed to the warnings and barriers that they will ignore all of them. We will also make the earth a very ugly place.

It would be more sensible to design society for people who are considered "above average", and to tell everybody that they have a responsibility to understand and follow the rules of society, and if they disregard the rules, they should not expect any pity.

Businesses, orchestras, sports groups, and other organizations do not support the concept of lawsuits. Although business executives often file lawsuits against other businesses, and although some employees of a business file lawsuits, they are filing the lawsuits outside of their organization, not within their organization.

No business executive is stupid enough to allow the concept of lawsuits within his own business. No business has its own internal legal system to allow the employees to file lawsuits against one another and profit from their problems. When there are disputes between employees, the management wants to resolve the dispute as quickly as possible, and as efficiently as possible.

This page claims that 80% of the world's lawyers are in the United States, and that we have 15 million civil cases every year. This site claims that those civil cases are a $200 billion a year burden on our nation.

The American Bar Association says that there are more than 1.2 million lawyers in the United States. There are very few organizations that have 1.2 million members. Hon Hai Precision Industry, (ie, Foxconn) has 1.3 million employees, and it produces a tremendous amount of products, such as cell phones, iPads, and videogame sets, but what are those 1.2 million lawyers doing for the United States? Furthermore, most of those lawyers are expecting above-average incomes.

We have a tremendous number of lawyers and lawsuits, but crime, corruption, and abuse is widespread. It should be obvious that the lawyers and the lawsuits are doing nothing to reduce crime or corruption, so who is benefiting from the lawyers and lawsuits? The only beneficiaries are the lawyers and the people who profit from the lawsuits.

The rest of us suffer from all of those lawyers because we must provide more than 1.2 million lawyers with food, houses, clothing, electricity, and other resources, and in return they give us nothing. They exploit fights, and encourage lawsuits. They are not beneficial.

Disney has had to deal with more than 1500 lawsuits during a 40 year period, which is almost a lawsuit every week, and that is only one business in America that is suffering as a result of allowing people to file lawsuits.

In our free enterprise system, lawyers have to compete with one another in order to make a living. However, they are not competing to create the most understandable legal documents, or to provide us with the most sensible analysis of crime, divorce, and other problems. Instead, they are competing to sell their services, and there is no concern in a free enterprise system for whether their services have any value to society. This causes lawyers to look for ways to exploit problems rather than reduce problems.

The competition for money also causes lawyers to want to make the legal system so difficult and confusing that we pay lawyers to create legal documents for us, and to explain the legal documents to us. They do not want legal documents to be easily understood, and they do not want us filling out legal forms by ourselves.

When a couple wants to get a divorce, lawyers want to get involved, but not because they want to help society understand why marriages are failing, or to help us experiment with improvements to our relationships. Rather, they want to profit from the fights.

Some divorces persist for so many weeks or months that we ought to consider the possibility that some lawyers are deliberately encouraging the couples to fight with each other so that they can make more money. Lawyers are not penalized when court cases are lengthy and expensive. Rather, the more inefficient, expensive, and time-consuming a court case is, the more the lawyers can profit from it. They have a financial incentive to prolong fights as long as possible.

When people are injured through accidents, lawyers want to help people file lawsuits, but not to help society understand or reduce the problems. Rather, they want to profit from the misery.

When people get old, lawyers want to get involved by writing wills for us, but not because they want to help us. They just want to get some of our money. They want wills to be so complicated that we have to pay a lawyer to write them. They don't want the government to provide a simplistic form for us to fill out on our own.

In a free enterprise system, lawyers are just another business looking for profit opportunities. It would make more sense to design a legal and economic system that does not allow anybody to benefit from problems. When problems occur, our attitude should be to look for ways to understand and reduce the problem.

We need to eliminate the free enterprise system so that lawyers can become government employees. Their job should be to resolve disputes between people and businesses; find ways to make laws more understandable and sensible; and figure out how to reduce disputes. They should be judged according to how quickly they can resolve disputes, and how many improvements they can find to our laws.

Employees in businesses, military units, orchestras, and other organizations occasionally have disputes, but the leaders of those organizations do not allow lawyers to get involved and profit from the fights. The management would be especially annoyed if lawyers were prolonging the fights in order to increase the money they were making from the fight.

The leaders of organizations want fights terminated as quickly as possible. If fights between employees persist for long periods of time, the manager responsible for resolving the problem might be fired for incompetence, or he might be given a job where he doesn't have to deal with such issues.

A government should react to disputes in the same way a business does. The government's attitude should be that lawyers should resolve the problem as quickly as possible. Nobody should be allowed to benefit from a dispute, and nobody should be allowed to encourage or prolong a fight.

Lawyers should be judged according to their ability to resolve disputes, and their ability to find improvements to our laws. The worst performing lawyers should be replaced so that somebody else can try. Through time this would result in lawyers who are beneficial to society, and who improve life for us.

For example, lawyers should look for ways to simplify divorce procedures so that people can get divorced with as little time and frustration as possible, and by causing the least burden on society. The ideal situation would be for lawyers to figure out how to make it so easy for people to handle a divorce that a couple can do it by themselves. Although we may never achieve such an ideal situation, it will certainly be possible to find ways to simplify divorces. The lawyers who find ways to simplify divorces and other problems should be considered more valuable than the lawyers who have no intelligent suggestions on simplifying society.

Incidentally, if we provide ourselves with a legal system in which the lawyers are trying to reduce fights and confusing laws, the successful lawyers would reduce the number of lawyers that a society needs. They would be putting lawyers out of work. In a free enterprise system, by comparison, lawyers have the opposite incentive. Specifically, they want to increase fights and make laws more confusing so that people need to purchase their services.

This shows one of the reasons that we should replace our free enterprise system with something better. Specifically, we should have jobs that are beneficial to society, and that includes a job that allows a person to figure out how to put himself out of work. We need an economic system in which nobody has to worry about eliminating his job. People who can find ways to eliminate their jobs, or eliminate somebody else's job, should be regarded as a talented member of society. Nobody should suffer homelessness or hunger as a result of somebody finding a way to improve society.

The lawyers in a free enterprise system are not doing anything useful for us. They are worse than parasites because they are not merely taking resources without contributing anything in return; rather, they help businesses look for loopholes; they encourage couples to prolong their divorce battles; and they encourage people to file lawsuits.

When the employees of a business have a dispute about something, they are not allowed to file a lawsuit. Instead, they are told to file a complaint with the management. We should apply the same concept to an entire nation. When a person or business has a problem with somebody else or another business, such as slander, plagiarism, or neighbors who build fences that cross the property line, they should file a complaint about it, and the lawyers should try to resolve the problem as quickly and efficiently as possible without allowing anybody to profit from the problem.

Businesses are using this type of legal system right now, and if they can do it, a nation can also. So, what is stopping us from eliminating lawsuits and switching to the type of legal system that a business uses?

The primary reason people are not going to switch to this type of legal system is that it requires tossing the United States Constitution in the trash and creating a new government and legal system, which would frighten most people, especially those who call themselves "conservatives". Many people consider themselves to be brave and courageous because they can get into fistfights, but most people do not have the courage to experiment with their government or legal system.

The majority of people in every nation do not want to look critically at their culture or experiment with it. They would rather beat their chest like an ape, and boast about their nation. The majority of people have no desire to experiment with "radical" changes to society.

Another reason we do not eliminate lawsuits is because there are millions of people who profit from lawsuits, such as lawyers and the people and businesses that file lawsuits. Not many of those people are interested in eliminating something that they profit from.

The only way the United States will be able to eliminate lawsuits is if we put a different group of people in control of the nation. We need to find people who have the courage to experiment with changes. We need leaders who have a desire to improve life, and who have the ability to look critically at the nation.

Most voters prefer the candidates who tell us that our nation is the greatest nation in the world, but boasting about ourselves is a waste of our time. We need leaders who can look critically at our nation, and who are able to experiment with changes to make our economy more pleasant, our school system more effective, our marriages more stable, and our social activities more enjoyable.

We already have the technology to create cities that consist of clusters of beautiful buildings surrounded by parks, recreational areas, forests, bicycle paths, ponds, and social clubs. The view out of your window could be similar to what you see in the image below.