It is also impossible to create social technology without making a lot of mistakes. Nobody is capable of figuring out the best government system, school system, or legal system. No matter what we do, we're going to make a lot of mistakes. However, social technology cannot be tested in a laboratory. There is no way to clamp a legal system into a fixture and have a robotic arm put it through a torture test.

Instead, we have to put our ideas into practice and watch what happens. We must use ourselves as laboratory rats. The best way to minimize problems is to implement new technology on a small scale, such as within a city that is relatively isolated from other people.

People who are unwilling or afraid to test new social technology are interfering with progress. We must be willing to experiment with our society. However, we would be fools to let our current government officials and social scientists experiment with us because they have unrealistic views on human behavior.

Before we can experiment with our society, we must provide ourselves with leaders who have more accurate explanations for human behavior. A person cannot solve a problem when he doesn't understand why the problem is occurring. For example, how would you explain the abuse of helpless people in these three examples:

From this BBC article

Here is one news article about this. One movie from India about this issue is White Rainbow

From this Daily Mail article.

Most people blame this type of cruelty on mysterious forces, such as the devil or evil, and others blame it on the environment, such as poverty or discrimination, but the key to understanding why humans behave in this cruel manner is to look at animals.

Chickens pull feathers out of other chickens. The chicken in this photograph had so many feathers pulled out of its neck that its skin is bare. Lots of animals torment and kill each other, including their own siblings.

Animals are not "cruel". Rather, this is a survival technique. Its purpose is to remove the most defective members. There is never enough food, and half of the population is always "below average", so there is an advantage for a group of animals to reduce their population by killing the most defective members, or by making it impossible for them to reproduce.

Humans behave exactly the same as animals because we are animals. Human children enjoy tormenting defective children for the exact same reason chickens enjoy pulling feathers out of the defective chickens. These type of activities are pleasurable to both animals and humans. This is why human children laugh about the abuse. This is also why so many adults enjoy abusing, raping, and killing orphans, cripples, runaway children, vagrants, prostitutes, old people, and retards.

Burglary, bank robbery, stock market manipulation, and most other crimes are due to people trying to satisfy their cravings for material items, sex, fame, or revenge, but the abuse of defective people is due to our animal-like cravings to remove the defective members of society.
 

Human societies must be designed for animals

The only way we will make a better society for ourselves is to accept the fact that we are animals. We must design society to deal with our crude, animal-like emotions. Anybody who cannot see the similarity between animals and humans should be considered mentally incompetent. They should not be allowed in top government positions or in social science.

The first step to improving the world is providing ourselves with better leaders, but how do we determine who among us should be selected for leadership positions? And why isn't our current system of selecting leaders providing us with these people?

The system we use to select government officials is "social technology". We need to understand why our current system is not working very well, and from that knowledge we can design a better system. However, designing better social technology requires we understand a little bit about what social technology is, and how to design it. Some of the important issues to keep in mind when we design social technology are:

1) Who benefits, and who suffers?
2) What type of behavior does it encourage?
3) How should our resources be allocated?
4) Have we provided checks and balances?
5) How does society benefit?

1) Who benefits, and who suffers?

There is no way to design technology that pleases everybody. In the case of physical technology, we reduce this problem by providing several variations of a product. For example, instead of designing just one clothes washing machine, we have large machines for industrial use; coin-operated machines for laundromats; and a variety of lower cost and smaller machines for household use.

However, we cannot offer a variety of government systems, economic systems, and legal systems, and then let every person and business follow the system they prefer. As a result, we cannot please everybody when we design social technology. Instead, we must design social technology according to a certain group of people, and we have to tell the others to accept it whether they like it or not.

Which group of people should we be designing our social technology for? Should we try to please the largest number of people? Or should we design society for the disadvantaged and the "Underdogs"?

Should we design cities primarily for automobiles that are owned by citizens? Or should we design cities primarily for other types of transportation, such as micro trains, small electric vehicles, or electric walkways?

Should cities be designed primarily for people who prefer a rural life in individual homes on individual plots of land? Or should we design a city similar to some university campuses in which most of the buildings are separated from each other by plants, ponds, and trees, and the people live in buildings that hold several or dozens of families? Should we provide covered walkways to allow people to walk around the city even during the rain, as in the photo below of Lingnan University in Hong Kong?

2) What type of behavior does it encourage?

Social technology manipulates people, and so we must ensure that people are manipulated in a manner that improves life for the people we are designing it for. Most of the social technology we have today developed inadvertently by religious people and science flunkies, and it encourages bad behavior. I mentioned an example in the Dumbing Down series; specifically, the American school system encourages bad attitudes among the dumb students and arrogance among the good students.

Another example is that our current economic systems encourage people to make profit; but there is no concern about the effect on society. The end result is that many people are making money through activities that are destructive to society, such as manipulating children into desiring products, and developing products that have no value, such as magic weight-loss programs.
 

3) How should our resources be allocated?

There is a limited number of skilled people, and some people are better than others at their job. Which projects should our better managers, carpenters, engineers, and scientists be working on? Which structures do we want our construction crews to be building? How many people do we want supporting a particular type of social technology?

As of today, the economies of America and Europe allow almost all of our resources to be allocated according to the free enterprise system. Since this system encourages people to make money with no regard to the effect of society, and since the majority of people want enormous amounts of entertainment, the end result is that lot of resources are put into gambling casinos, Hollywood movies, alcohol production, toys, weight-loss programs, cosmetic surgery, and other forms of entertainment.

The software that provides the special effects for Hollywood movies is very advanced because there is a lot of money available for that field. By comparison, the software that controls computer controlled milling machines have a lot of idiotic limitations due to the lack of money for development.

The governments try to help the situation by putting tax money into projects that free enterprise does a terrible job with, such as trains, sewers, and roads, but our governments are so corrupt and incompetent that they are not very effective at compensating for the flaws of the free enterprise system.
 

4) Have we provided checks and balances?

The competition for survival has caused checks and balances to develop for all living creatures. For example, we have a strong craving for food, but food was always in short supply in 20,000 BC. As a result, the craving for food could never get out of control.

Human emotions developed for a primitive life in which we spend most of our time struggling to find for food, looking for a place to sleep for the night, and defending ourselves from predators. Unfortunately, many of the checks and balances that kept our ancestors under control are no longer working.

Our social systems are also lacking checks and balances. Our economic system, for example, encourages the making of money, but there is no concern for how the money is made. When I was a teenager, we were advised to go to college so that we could get a "good job" and make "good money". A "good job" is the opposite of "nigger work", as it was often described, and "good money" is a lot of money.

Children are still shown graphs like this one to prove that: Education = Money = Happiness

Some people promote this philosophy because they truly believe that money will buy happiness, but others promote it as a way to trick their children into getting an education. However, this is not a solution to the problem of people who don't want to learn or think, and  it encourages bad behavior.

What is "nigger work"?

In 20,000 BC everybody had to do "nigger work". They had to look for food every day with crude tools, and they had to make the tools by themselves. They had to make simple shelters to live in; make their own clothing; and raise their own children. There were no servants, nannies, day care centers, or slaves. There were no farm workers, waiters, janitors, or factory workers.

Throughout most of history, most of the human population did "nigger work", but were they miserable because of it? If we could go back in time to 20,000 BC, would we have found our ancestors to be depressed and frequently committing suicide?

There is always a certain percentage of the human population that is miserable, but there is also always a certain percentage that is enjoying life. In between the extremes are the majority of people who are sometimes happy and sometimes miserable. However, this has nothing to do with the type of work they do; their level of material wealth; or how famous they are. It has to do with the quality of their mind and body.

The idea that some jobs are better than others is similar to the concept that some food is better tasting, or that some television programs are better. People are arrogant, and most people don't think very well, so when we discover a food that we enjoy, our natural tendency is to assume that the food is better tasting. It takes a certain amount of intelligence to understand that it doesn't make sense to say "Broccoli tastes terrible". While we all understand what a person means by that remark, it is more accurate to say, "I don't like the taste of broccoli."

It takes even more intelligence to realize that the food you like is influenced by what you ate as a child. Therefore, if you had grown up in a different nation or era, you might enjoy some of the foods that you currently dislike.

Jobs are the same as food; specifically, a job that you enjoy may not be so pleasurable to somebody else, and vice versa. Furthermore, if you had grown up in a different era or nation, you might enjoy a job that you would whine about today.

The attitude that children should get an education in order to avoid hard work, or nigger work, is a destructive attitude. It's as stupid as describing some food as a "nigger food". Children should be taught that there is no such thing as a good job, good food, a good book, or a good hairstyle. Instead, children should be encouraged to try different activities and find a job that allows them to contribute something of value to society.

Parents often try to trick their children into getting an education by frightening them about "nigger work" and "poverty", but this is not a solution to the problem of children who don't want to learn. 
We have to face the fact that people are slightly different. We cannot force or trick people into behaving in a manner that they're not interested in. We cannot force dumb people to become smart, and we cannot force people to learn when they're not interested in learning. We need a different policy for the people who don't fit in.
 

5) How does society benefit?

Social technology should not be designed to please people. Instead, it should be designed to make "society" better. For example, if you were designing a school system for young children, you would provide the school with running water, bathrooms, tables, chairs, certain books, and certain other supplies. However, you would not provide the children with candy, even though that would please the children.

Most people can understand that we should not ask young children how to design a school system, and we should not care whether they like the school system. Rather, we should design the school according to what would be best for their education and development.

We must apply the same concept to the development of social technology that is intended for adults. Specifically, we should not care what people think about government, economic systems, or legal systems. We should not try to please people. Instead, we should be asking, "What is best for society?"

This requires that we make a decision on who within our society we are designing our social technology for, and it also requires that we come to some conclusion on what makes society "better"; what makes people "happy".
 

What is happiness?

Most people mimic a lot of phrases, such as "Money doesn't buy happiness", and, "If I won the lottery I would continue to work." However, most people truly believe that their happiness will increase as they reduce the amount of work they must do and increase the amount of money they have. Most people believe that happiness comes from satisfying their emotional desires. Since money allows us to satisfy our desires, most people assume that more money will make them more happy.

If satisfying our desires truly made us happy, then the ultimate in happiness would come from having a magic genie to grant your every wish. However, you would not be happy if you had everything you wanted. Humans and animals are virtually the same in regards to what makes us happy.

Specifically, we need challenges to overcome; goals to strive for. We complain when we have problems to deal with, but ironically, if we didn't have any problems to deal with, we would become bored and create idiotic problems for ourselves.

Humans are an animal that was designed to take care of itself every day. We were not designed to lounge for 16 hours a day while servants pamper us. We need activities; goals; problems. Doing nothing all day and being pampered by servants is fun only when it is a rare occurrence. Unfortunately, when most people discover an activity that titillates them, they make the mistake of assuming that by repeating the activity over and over, they will be titillated again and again. People do this with food, gambling, sex, television, sports, and fame.

People do this with relationships, also. Specifically, it can be a lot of fun to meet somebody new, but people often make the mistake of assuming that if they were to abandon their current spouse and get married to the new person, they will have a happier life. Sometimes this is true, but usually they have been fooled by the excitement of meeting somebody new.
 

We need problems to solve

Humans and animals were not meant to lounge all day. Unfortunately, the philosophy about happiness that most people follow is the opposite of what actually brings us satisfaction. Most people believe that stimulating themselves over and over will bring an increase in happiness.

Most people behave like a stupid rat with an electrode in its brain. When it discovers that pressing a lever makes it feel good, it presses it over and over.

Eating food is pleasurable, but we cannot increase the pleasure by eating more food than we actually need to live. Ironically, food is more pleasurable when we've done something during the day and are hungry when we eat. People who are frequently eating will not experience the same satisfaction with food as people who do some work and experience hunger between meals.

The pleasure animals and humans receive when we eat was not intended to entertain us. Rather, the feelings of hunger are meant to motivate us into searching for food, and the pleasure we receive from eating is the reward for the effort. We cannot increase our happiness by eating more food.
 

What if our ancestors never had to look for food?

Imagine if we could travel back in time to 20,000 BC and during the night we secretly put a pile of food at the campsites of our primitive ancestors. When they wake up in the morning, they have plenty of fresh food. Imagine that we do this for a couple of years.

When provided with all of the food they need to eat, they would have no need to hunt animals or search for berries or vegetables. Since the search for food required many hours every day, this meant that they would have a lot more leisure time.

Hunger was the main emotion driving animals and our ancestors. If we were to provide them with all the food they need, they would never experience hunger. That would allow the less powerful emotions to play a more significant role in their lives. What are those less powerful emotions? What would they do with their extra leisure time?
 

What if you never had to do any work?

There may be a time in the future in which computers and robots are so advanced that machines are doing almost all of the work, and everybody is papered by robots. What would you do each day if you didn't have to do anything in particular?

Take a look at the past few centuries. As leisure time has increased, most people have chosen to spend it titillating themselves with television, food, sex, gambling, babies, and drugs. Today we also have lots of toys for adults, such as jet skis, snow skis, off road vehicles, and race cars.

Men have strong cravings to fight other men and dominate land areas and people. Men consider themselves to be "powerful" when they control a lot of land and/or people. As a result of this emotion, many men get involved in business and wage economic warfare on other businesses in order to conquer more economic territory. Some men get involved in politics and try to conquer other nations. Some get involved with sports and try to conquer other sports teams.

There is no reason to think that people in the future will behave any differently than people of today. Therefore, most people in the future will probably spend hours a day connected to "virtual reality" helmets and sensors.

The people who spend their time with television are not harming the world, but the men who turn our economy into an economic battlefield are hurting everybody, including themselves, and the same is true of government officials who start wars.
 

What should we do with our leisure time?

In prehistoric eras, people spent their time surviving, and then they died. Today we don't have to worry about food or shelter, so most people spend their time working for money and entertaining themselves, and then we die. The people in the future will have less work to do, so what will they do? Entertain themselves even more, and then die?

We live for only a few decades, and then we die. What should we do with our short life? This issue will become even more important to the future generations because they will have more leisure time. What should they teach their children in school when robots are doing virtually everything? What should the adults do each day?

The human race is entering a new era. Many of the emotions that have been driving humans for thousands of years are no longer appropriate, and some emotions, such as the craving that men have to dominate land and people, is detrimental today.

The emotion to hunt animals is not destructive to society, but since we allow men to hunt with lead bullets, they may be causing lead poisoning of people and animals. We would help the environment by requiring all hunting bullets to be made of something less dangerous, such as iron or copper. Many hunters will complain that iron bullets are not as effective as lead bullets, but so what? They are hunting only to satisfy their animal-like cravings. It doesn't matter if they don't kill as many animals. They don't even need guns in order to satisfy this emotion; they could use bows and arrows, sharp sticks, or rocks.

You can see the same behavior with dogs. If you simply drop a stick in front of a dog, it will get upset. Dogs want us to throw the stick so that they can pursue it. It is the pursuit of the stick that gets them excited, not the capture or biting of the stick.

Likewise, when men today hunt for animals, they don't need of food, so it makes no difference if they kill an animal. It is the pursuit of the animal that gets them excited. If we were excited by the act of killing, it would be easier for us to raise cats or dogs so that we would have steady supply of animals that we could easily kill.

A hunter who refuses to use iron bullets reminds me of a joke in which a drunk gets into a taxicab and tells the driver to go around the park six times. The third time around he tells the driver, "Can you hurry it up buddy? I'm in a hurry!"

It also reminds me of the businesses that put a lot of hungry fish into a small pond so that children can catch fish easily.
 

Business executives are frustrated hunters

Many people assume that the businessmen who become extremely wealthy, or who get promoted to top positions in a corporate hierarchy, are somehow better than the rest of us. It is certainly true that people who are successful in business have something special about them, but is it something that we should envy?

We cannot determine what a refrigerator is according to the advertisements about it. Instead, we have to use it for a while, and observe its behavior. The same is true with people. We cannot judge businessmen according to what they claim to be, or by whether they do good in school. We have to look at what they actually do during their lives.

The concept I mentioned in my article about global warming in regards to scientists applies to businessmen, also. Specifically, if our top executives were wonderful people, it would be nearly impossible for large organized crime gangs to exist, and it would be nearly impossible for corrupt governments to survive.

If businessmen were truly respectable, they would refuse to give Larry Silverstein billions of dollars of insurance money for the demolition of the World Trade Center buildings; they would refuse to advertise in the New York Times, Newsweek, Scientific American, Popular Mechanics, and other deceptive publications; they would refuse to provide financial support to John Kerry, George Bush, Bill Clinton, and other worthless and corrupt political candidates; they would refuse to allow deceptive advertisements; and they would refuse to advertise to children or sexually titillate children.

If our top business executives were truly intelligent and respectable, they would have a beneficial effect on the world. They would help create a better economy, better government, better television programs, and better schools. The same is true if university professors were respectable, or if scientists were respectable, or if engineers were respectable, or if labor unions were respectable. If there was any large group of people who were truly respectable, we would see a beneficial effect on the world. Obviously, there is no group. All humans are animals.

The wealthy businessmen, especially in America, have a reputation for dishonesty, greed, and selfishness, and this developed because of their behavior. They created their reputation. They are routinely caught abusing laws; financing corrupt political candidates; and profitting from major crimes, such as the Apollo moon landing hoax, the September 11 attack, and the Iraq war. They show almost no interest in making their society nicer; they don't care much about pollution; they don't try to reduce corruption; and their advertisements try to manipulate and deceive us. Their primary concern in life is making money; getting control of more people; and expanding their economic empire. They spend almost all of their money satisfying crude emotions for big houses, expensive cars, jewelry, and pampering by servants. They're just animals with money; wealthy apes; business monkeys.
www.worth1000.com/emailthis.asp?entry=391756

The extremely successful businessmen regard the competing businesses as enemies, not as competition. They don't show any concern about contributing something of value to society. Rather, they are interested in conquering their enemies. This is why they are willing to do things that are destructive to society, such as abuse laws, bribe government officials, and sexually titillate children. Their goal is not to make society a better place; rather, their goal is to conquer enemies and feel important. These people are unfit for leadership in our era. It doesn't matter if they are intelligent or hard-working; what matters is their behavior; their effect on society.

Top businessmen are like lions in a cage that pace back and forth, as these two lions are doing. The businessmen want to hunt and fight, and their idiotic solution is to wage economic warfare.

Many of the men that are causing trouble today would have been wonderful in 20,000 BC. Their cravings to hunt, conquer territory, and fight the neighboring tribes would have made them valuable members of society, and we would have been proud of them. However, we are entering an era in which some of our animal-like behavior is not merely silly; rather, it is destructive.
 

Sports activities are out of control

The cravings that men have to fight with other men has resulted in a lot of sports activities in which men compete with one another in a symbolic fight. Sports also allow men to socialize with other men and get some exercise.

Unfortunately, most men are not intelligent enough to understand why they enjoy sports. They are coming to the conclusion that the purpose of a sports game is to win the game. The end result is that they put a lot of time and money into practicing the sport and buying equipment.

The golfing industry sells a lot of equipment – especially putters – to people who want to replace their existing equipment, even though their existing equipment is in perfect condition.

The professional athletes are entertainers, so they can justify spending a lot of time and money on equipment and practice, but the ordinary people have no need to practice or spend any money on sports.

If dogs were slightly more intelligent, a group of them might get together to practice chasing after sticks. They might also spend a lot of money on sticks. A human that practices a sport and spends lots of money is behaving in the same silly manner.

Are parents raising children? Or playing with toys?

The craving that men have to dominate people and territory is much stronger in adult men than it is in young boys. If young boys were left alone, their sports would be very casual. Unfortunately, many men want their children to behave like miniature adults, so they push their children into winning the sports games. They often buy expensive equipment for their children, and they put pressure on their children to practice the sports, follow the rules, and care about who wins the game.

Other parents "help" their children get involved with beauty pageants, music groups, religion, or other activities. They also frequently purchase toys for their children, and since children get bored with toys quickly, there is a constant flow of new toys coming into the house, and old toys going into the garbage.

In prehistoric eras none of these activities were available, and there were no toys to purchase. Also, the adult men would have spent most of their time with other adult men, not with children. Today we have a lot of leisure time, and many adults are spending a significant portion of their time and money with their children's leisure time activities. Is this truly the best way to raise children? Or are these parents are lonely and bored, and using their children for entertainment?

What will happen when adults in the future have even more leisure time? Will the children of the future be provided with even more toys and even more expensive equipment and training?

Raising children is like raising apple trees or chickens. Specifically, it's a responsibility; its work, and much of the work is nigger work. Unfortunately, many of the people who are having children are the type of people who want to avoid nigger work. Their primary interest in children seems to be the fantasy that children will bring meaning into their boring, miserable life. Not surprisingly, many of these parents want nannies and daycare centers to raise their children. These parents want to play with their children, not raise their children.

The women in 20,000 B.C. who were not interested in taking care of their children were not as successful as mothers. Today, however, society will help them to raise their children.

If humans continue to degrade, robots will raise children in the future, and mothers will visit their children only for brief moments to giggle at them. This image is from my Sheeple psychology series

Society should suppress criminals, not hide from them

When designing social technology, we must make a decision on which of these two, very different philosophies we want to follow in regards to people who don't behave properly:

1) We can hide from badly behaved people and try to protect ourselves from them.
2) We can aggressively pursue the badly behaved people and try to remove them from society, such as by sending them to some nation for criminals, or killing them.

It's easy to get people to agree that we should clamp down on bank robbers, but a lot of crimes are not very serious, and some people are behaving in manners that are annoying but legal. What do we do about all these trivial crimes and irritating people? Our current policy is to protect ourselves from these people, but this is not a solution. Rather, it makes the problem worse. Consider the issue of nudity and sexual harassment.
 

Why is nudity illegal?

There are valid reasons for requiring clothing in buildings or anywhere near furniture. For example, our skin produces oil, dead cells, and perspiration; our butt is rarely clean; and drops of pee dribble out of us after we are finished peeing. The human body is just a variation of a monkey's body; it was not designed for furniture.
 

Although nudity is undesirable around furniture, why are we forbidden from being naked at parks, forests, and beaches? Part of the resistance to nudity is because most people are ashamed of their bodies. Only a small percentage of the human population today looks nice naked. Actually, only a small percentage looks nice in clothing! Humans are degrading into freaks with terrible teeth, awful complexions, drab hair, un-symmetrical features, and terrible posture.

Most people's reaction to their ugliness is to hide their defects. However, even people who have nice-looking bodies are not allowed to be naked, especially not women. It seems that the primary resistance to allowing women to be naked in public is because of the concern that it will stimulate men's sexual desires. This concern has resulted in women in virtually every society being forced to hide some or all of their body.

Americans and Europeans hide their breasts with "nursing burqas".
In some Muslim countries, the burqas cover virtually every part of a woman's body.
The problem of men groping women in crowded trains has caused Japan to set aside some trains for women.
In Italy a beach has been set aside for women only.

What will be next? Airplanes for women? National forests for women? What will happen if lesbians become a problem in the Japanese trains or on the Italian beaches? Do we create separate trains and beaches for lesbians? What if aggressive women become a problem? Do we set aside special trains for bitchy women?

Our distant ancestors lived their entire lives in complete nudity. Even after people began using animal skins as clothing, nudity was very common. How were the men thousands of years ago capable of living around naked women and naked children? Why is it that men today are having a problem with nudity?

If we could bring our primitive ancestors to our era, would they behave just as badly as the men today? Would they be just as incapable of resisting the temptation to grope women on crowded trains or make lewd remarks to women on the beach? Would they be just as likely to rape young boys and girls?

Is there something about modern life that is causing this problem? For example, is it because of the constant sexual titillation that men receive from television and advertisements? Or is it because humans have been degrading genetically during the past few thousand years? Is any of the bad behavior due to chemicals in our environment causing chromosome damage?

If the environment was causing men to behave tbadly, then all men would behave badly. Since only some of the men behave badly, and because they are scattered at random, it must be due to genetic variations in our minds.
 

Are badly behaved men acting like animals?

Some people say that men are acting like animals when they grope women, rape children, or stare at them, but how often do animals behave in this manner? While animal behavior is crude, animals don't suffer such extreme sex-related problems. Therefore, it is more accurate to say that badly behaved humans are behaving like defective animals.

There are so many children being raped and kidnapped that there are training programs for women and children on how to fight. However, behaving like a frightened rabbit is not doing anything to stop the problem. There are a few sample training videos at this site.

Designing our society to protect ourselves from the badly behaved people is not helping us. A better solution is to design society for respectable people, and suppress the badly behaved people.
 

What prevents animals from raping each other?

Female animals are in a worse dilemma than female humans because there are no animal police to stop a male animal from raping other animals. Animals have anarchy; they have freedom to do as they please. Animals are even free to rape animals from other species. There is nothing stopping a dog from raping a cat, for example. So why don't dogs rape cats?

Some men raped a woman after they killed her, and some employees at mortuaries (even women) have had sex with dead bodies. What is stopping a lion from raping an antelope after he kills it? What is stopping hyenas from raping dead animals?

Rape with animals is rare because rape is cheating in the competition for reproduction. The struggle for survival is constantly removing the males that rape and favoring the males that earn the females. The offspring from animals that rape will be inferior, so animals that rape will eventually go extinct rather than evolve into an animal that rapes on a routine basis.

Just as the eating of food was not designed to entertain us, sex did not develop to entertain us. Rather, sex developed because it proved to be a superior method of reproduction compared to splitting into two pieces. Sexual desires developed only to motivate male and female animals to reproduce.

Every creature has slightly different genetic traits, so some animals inherit sexual behavior that is inappropriate. However, the competition for survival is always eliminating the animals with the most inappropriate sexual desires. 

Rape is a method to cheat in the competition to reproduce, so the successful animals have protection mechanisms to prevent it. We can see the effect of thousands of years of evolution by watching a young girl develop. During the first few years of life, a young girl has no concern about nudity, sex, or protecting her body. By about the age of five she starts becoming extremely sensitive to adult men looking at or touching her body. Young girls do not learn this behavior from other people; rather, it is designed into their brain. The reason is that the animals who survived the competition for life were the ones that developed emotions to prevent rape.

The hysteria that women display when a man tries to rape them, and the emotional trauma they go through if the man is successful, is a sign of how significant this problem of rape has been. Women do not oppose rape because rape is "bad" for women; rather, the females that permitted rape produced inferior babies, whereas the females who fought the rapists produced higher-quality babies.

Women don't become hysterical about other types of abuse, such as when they are lied to, or when their children are manipulated into purchasing products, or when the World Trade Center buildings are blown up while thousands of people are still inside. Women don't become hysterical when they discover that they were lied to about the Holocaust or the Apollo moon landing. Rather, women become hysterical only when adult men touch women or children in a sexual manner. This hysteria about rape developed because it was a necessary quality for both animals and humans.

Men must have a strong craving for sex in order to push them into pursuing women, and men must be aggressive in pursuing women because women are submissive, but if our craving for sex is too strong, or if we are too aggressive, or if other qualities are inappropriate, we may decide to grope, rape, or annoy the women.

Unfortunately, there is no dividing line between the men whose sexual desires are appropriate, and the men whose desires are inappropriate. All "normal" men want sex, just as we want food, water, and material items, and all men are aggressive with women. So, why don't all of us rape the women we find attractive? Why don't all of us steal the material items or food that we find appealing?

Compare young children to adults to understand this. When a child's body starts running low on energy, his brain will turn on a craving for food. The child reacts to the feeling to by trying to eat immediately. Parents must train their children to suppress their cravings for food.

Animals behave exactly like human children. When an animal is hungry, it will attempt to eat whatever food it is aware of. People with pets have to keep food in locations where the animal cannot reach it.

When young children are taken into a retail store, they will grab whatever item appeals to them. Parents must train their children to suppress their cravings for material items and learn about the concept of personal property and theft. Animals also grab, chew, and play with any material item that appeals to them.

If young children were sexually active, they would want sex whenever the urge developed, and parents would have to teach them to suppress that craving, also.

There is no dividing line between a person who steals items and a person who never steals, or between men who rape and men who never rape. We all have the same desires and qualities. There are only subtle differences between us.

Humans are animals, and when we are hungry, we want to eat. When we see an item we are attracted to, we want to grab it. The only thing stopping us from following our animal-like emotions is our ability to think. We will think about how our behavior will affect other people, and we will also consider whether satisfying our emotional craving will actually do us any good in the long run.

Many people believe that the threat of jail and punishment is stopping crime, but that doesn't make sense. There were no jails, police, or punishments thousands of years ago, but our distant ancestors were not constantly raping one another, stealing each others' material items, or murdering one another. The threat of punishment is effective only in stopping people who are on the borderline between committing a crime and not committing it. Threats don't do anything to stop the people who cannot control the urge to commit a crime, and it has no effect on the people who can easily control the urge.
 

Are women better behaved than men?

The issue of rape may create the impression that men are badly behaved, and that women are innocent victims. However, men and women are merely subtle variations of the same human creature. Neither of us can be described as "better".

Men have a tendency to use women for sex, but women have a tendency to use men for support and entertainment. The human mind is merely an intelligent animal mind. Both males and females are selfish and abusive, but because of our subtle emotional differences, we abuse one another in slightly different manners.
 

Why are women non-violent?

In regards to the ability to fight and kill, there's not much of a difference between a male and a female dog, or a male and a female cat. However, there is a tremendous difference between the fighting abilities and desires of men and women.

Women are less violent than men, but it's not because women are "better". Rather, a long time ago our male ancestors began preferring the less violent females. We can see this preference in men today. If our ancestors had not been doing this, the women today would fight just as much as men, and just as well. Women fight with each other, but their fights are primarily emotional, not physical.
 

"Honest" people are not necessarily better than criminals

A person who never violates the law is not necessarily "better" or more honest than the people who have violated laws. Organized crime gangs take advantage of this by providing the "honest" people with the opportunity to rape children, steal items, or commit some other crime.

Sometimes the honest people are not really honest; rather, they are too emotionally weak to commit a crime by themselves, or they are worried about going to jail, or they just never had a good opportunity to commit a crime. Therefore, if some other criminal is helping them, the "honest" person may gladly join in on the criminal activities.
 

Should immigrants adopt the culture of their new nation?

The issue of burqas brings up an important issue that is affecting many nations today. Specifically, when people move to another nation, should they abandon their previous culture and follow the culture of their new homeland?

Many of the Muslims who live in America and Europe want to follow the Muslim culture, such as the wearing of burqas. Many of the Chinese who live in America want to speak Chinese and live as they would in China. Many of the Mexicans who live in America want to speak Spanish. Many Jews want to speak Hebrew and live according to their ideas of Jewish culture.

When a person moves to another nation, should they adapt to that culture of that nation? What about a nation such as America, which has people from around the world? Whose culture should dominate when a nation has people from many different nations, religions, and races?

The issue of immigration becomes more complicated when you realize that most of the people who move to another nation are not interested in the other nation's culture, and have no desire to become a member of the nation. Rather, some are attracted to the opportunities to make money; some are trying to get away from the police; and some are trying to get away from problems within their nation, such as war or overcrowding.

What would you think of a person who wanted to be your friend only because he thought it would benefit him financially, or because he thought it would help him avoid getting arrested, or simply because your house was not as crowded as those of his other friends?

To further complicate this issue, most nations are accepting immigrants because they want a source of cheap labor, and some citizens like to titillate themselves by imagining that they are heroes who save the poor, the downtrodden, and the underdogs.

What would you think of a wealthy person who accepted a poor person as a friend because he wanted to use him as a servant, or because he wanted to boast to his other friends that he helps the downtrodden, the underdogs, and the unwanted?

Most of the immigration is not "respectable"; rather, it is selfish and abusive.
 

Immigration must be controlled

If you have a family, imagine coming home one day and finding your spouse and children lounging in front of the television while several poor, uneducated Mexicans are serving them food and drinks. Other Mexicans are cleaning the kitchen, and some are doing your children's schoolwork. Your spouse tells you that the Mexicans offered to work for very low wages. Your spouse tells you not to worry; the Mexicans will not be an inconvenience because when the work is done each day, all of the Mexicans will go into the garage for the night. When the Mexicans start having babies of their own, they will expand into the backyard rather than take up space in the house.

Would you get angry with the Mexicans? Would you demand a wall be built between America and Mexico to protect you from the Mexicans?

If you're having trouble understanding how this applies to America and Europe, consider a more extreme example. Imagine that in the Amazon rain forest is a species of giant, intelligent spiders. Because spiders have so many arms, they would be extremely useful on assembly lines, as waiters, and for climbing up buildings to wash windows. Imagine that Americans and Europeans bring millions of these giant spiders into their nations every year to use as cheap labor.
 

Imagine people complaining that the spiders are eating thousands of human children every year, but they continue importing spiders because they love the cheap labor.

Eventually, the spiders would dominate America and Europe. Would you be angry with the spiders?

Humans are animals, and if given a choice, we will use each another as cheap labor. This exploitation creates a lot of problems. The immigration into both cities and nations must be controlled.

The people best suited for our technically advanced era are the people who are most willing to take care of themselves, raise their own families, clean up their own mess, and contribute to society.
 

What is the purpose of life?

We prefer to believe that humans were put on this planet by a loving God; that God designed us with wonderful qualities; that our life has a purpose; and we will have another, even more wonderful life, after we die. Unfortunately, all of the evidence suggests that humans are just crude, selfish animals, and that there is no purpose for our lives. Rather, we simply live for a while, and then we die.

Our bodies have such ridiculous flaws that they could not possibly have been designed by an intelligent creature. For example, we have nerves running along our elbow; pee dribbles out of us after we finish peeing; lots of people are retarded; our nose cannot keep itself clean; and men have testicles dangling between their legs. A "superior being" with the ability to create a universe could certainly have done a better job designing us.

At the beginning of this article I mentioned that we have to consider the allocation of resources when we design social technology, and we have to consider the effect on society, and we need to design checks and balances. The stickers for children are a simple example to explain these concepts.

The sheets of stickers appear to be simple, inexpensive pieces of sticky paper, but producing them requires amazing technology.
 

The sheet of stickers are coated with an adhesive, and may have a top coat for shininess and protection. The liner holds the stickers and protects the adhesive.

It's very easy to produce the material and print a complex design on it, but cutting the printed sheet into stickers that follow the complex shape of the item on the sticker – in this case an animal – requires making a complex knife blade.

Cutting stickers is similar to cutting dough with a cookie cutter. In this photo the cutter is made of plastic, but sticker cutters must be made of steel, and it must cut through the stickers without causing much damage to the liner.

The "blades are cut into a steel cylinder. As the material rolls under the blade, the sticker is cut but not the liner. Because the materials are very thin, the blades must be cut with tremendous precision.

These cylindrical blades can perform amazing tasks at low cost, such as cutting cardboard into patterns. By making some blades dull, they can crease sections of the cardboard.

If the stickers were rectangular – as in this photo – it would be easy to produce them, but business are "pandering to pleasure seeking", as Plato would say. The competition to attract children is causing the designers of stickers to demand the blades follow complex shapes.

These blades are especially expensive when doing small letters of the alphabet (such as the tiny, iridescent letters in the photo below) because the people and their machines have to spend a lot more time creating these intricate blades.

If we decide to provide stickers for children, why not make the stickers rectangular? Or why not let the children cut the stickers with a scissors? Or why not let engineering students develop these unimportant products as a way to practice their engineering skills on a product that is not critical? At the same time, it would show the students that a lot of effort goes into making these silly products.

Many people justify stickers and other products for children on the grounds that they provide the children with activities, but the adults are doing almost all of the work. Children decades ago had to draw their own pictures, and cut out their own shapes. Today parents are providing children with activities that are almost completely finished. How is this providing children with "activities"? How are children benefiting from this? How is society benefiting from this?
 

Is there any job satisfaction in making children's stickers?

When designing an economy, we should also consider the effect that jobs have on people. If you went to school to learn engineering or machining, would you want to put your talent to use in making stickers for children?

Most people don't care what their job is; rather, they just want money. Most engineers don't care whether they are faking an Apollo moon landing or developing a product that has some value. However, we should design society for the more advanced people, not the people who behave like animals. The more respectable people are not going to be as happy when they are doing a job that they consider to be worthless.

Our economy doesn't have any checks and balances to keep our emotions under control. As a result, businesses are becoming dominated by men with obsessions for money and dominance, and they waste our time and resources as they fight with one another. The issue of children's stickers is just one example. There are thousands of worthless products for both children and adults, and thousands of examples of businesses that waste a lot of resources on packaging, Hollywood star endorsements, and deceptive advertisements.
 

Particle accelerators / Synchrotrons

A more complex example of how we have to allocate resources are particle accelerators. The big, expensive particle accelerators that smash atoms have yet to produce anything of value. However, since most people don't know what a particle accelerator is, I made a separate page for this discussion:
Particle Accelerators

Some people are afraid that the government will create a national ID card to replace all of the drivers licenses, Social Security cards, and other forms of identification. They also worry that the electronic chips on these cards will contain a lot of information about us.

What difference does it make whether we have one ID card, or if we have several ID cards? The cards are just pieces of paper or plastic, so they cannot harm us.

The quantity of cards that we carry around with us is not important. Instead, we should be concerned about who our government officials are; what authority these officials have; what these government officials are actually doing; and what is happening to the information that the government is collecting.

A national ID card would make life much simpler for all of us. It would also save a lot of money and resources. We could eliminate all of our credit cards, driver's licenses, Social Security cards, passports, and even employee badges. If the national ID card was connected to a database accessible to every business and person, we could purchase products simply by showing our national ID card, and that would identify us and charge our bank account.

A lot of people dream about having more "freedom", and they claim that the national ID card will reduce freedom. Ironically, a national ID card would give us more freedom by eliminating the burden of maintaining the other cards. The reduction in cards would also reduce pollution and save resources.

The same is true with fingerprints, retina scans, and other identification techniques. Technology cannot harm us; we can only be harmed by people. Therefore, instead of worrying about the technology, we need to worry about how our government is designed, who our government officials are, and what they're doing.

If it were practical to scan fingerprints, we wouldn't need to carry a national ID card or sign our name on documents. When we want to purchase something, we would put our finger over a scanner, and the computer would identify us and record our purchase.

If the fingerprint database was accessible worldwide, then we could purchase products and identify ourselves anywhere in the world, and we would never have to worry about cards or passports. Wouldn't that be easier than carrying cards and signing receipts? If the fingerprint scanning devices were small and inexpensive, we could even replace some of the locks and keys that we currently use.

The paranoia of fingerprint databases and world ID cards is coming from the same group of liars who try to frighten us with stories of the "New World Order", Satanists, and UFO abductions. Specifically, people such as Henry Makow, Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, Kurt Nimmo, and many other Zionist Agents.
 

Will the government put chips under our skin?

Many people worry that the government will install electronic chips in our bodies if we allow them to create a national ID card or fingerprint database. Their reasoning is that if we let the government get away with a program that is useful, the evil government officials will feel confident to go one step further and putting chips inside us.

This reasoning is similar to the nonsense that if a child tries marijuana, he will next try heroin or other drugs. It is true that once a child smokes marijuana he may be tempted to try other drugs, but this effect is due to children discovering that their parents were lying about the dangers of marijuana.

Parents who frighten their children about marijuana are analogous to government officials and news reporters who told us that Arabs were responsible for the September 11 attack. As soon as we realize that they lied about the September 11 attack, we are likely to wonder what else they lied about. Likewise, once a child discovers that his parents lied about marijuana, he is likely to wonder if they lied about the other drugs, also.

Allowing the government to create national ID cards will not lead to dangerous or silly programs unless we allow it. We can allow national or world ID cards, and at the same time we can refuse to accept chips under our skin. We don't have to live like frightened rabbits hiding from a wolf.

There may be a point in the future at which microchips and medical technology has advanced to the point that placing chips under our skin can be justified. However, at the moment our businesses, governments, courts, police, and universities are dominated by incompetent and corrupt people, so I would not trust them or allow them to put chips under our skin. So, all we have to do is say no to the microchips. Is it really that difficult? 

Instead of living in fear of our government and crime, we should be putting effort into designing better governments, finding better people to put into leadership positions, and watching over the government to make sure they behave properly.

So, how do we create a better government for ourselves? How do we find better people to put into the government? We should begin by changing our attitude towards leaders.

When you hire a gardener, plumber, car mechanic, or dentist, you don't stand up when they enter the room, applaud them every time they do something, and treat them as if they are royalty. Instead, you treat them as people doing a job. If they do a nice job, you might praise them, and if they do a lousy job you will avoid hiring them again.

By comparison, government officials are still being treated as if they are kings and queens. People stand up and applaud when the president enters a room. When the president gives a speech, the audience will applaud after every few sentences. When the president is finished with a speech, the audience applauds once again. The applause is given regardless of whether he said something intelligent. People will applaud him even if he lies about the September 11 attack, and even if they realize he is lying, and even if they are upset that he is lying.

Humans have the same emotion that we find in the animals; specifically, we treat the dominant male as the leader simply because he is in a leadership position. Animals never question the performance or abilities of their leader. There are occasional challenges to his position, but animals follow their leader simply because he is the leader.

This emotion works for animals because they are incapable of intelligent thought, but it is creating extreme problems for humans today. This emotion causes us to give obedience to whoever happens to be in a leadership position, even if he is mentally ill.

Our leaders should be treated the same as plumbers, assembly line workers, farm workers, sales clerks, and engineers. Specifically, our leaders should be regarded as people who are doing a job, and if they cannot do their job properly, they must be told to find a different job.
 

We should not defend our leaders

Compare the difference between the way people treat government officials to the way they treat a waiter at a restaurant. When a waiter shows any sort of imperfection, the typical person gets angry at the waiter, and some people will punish the waiter with snide remarks or by refusing to leave a tip.

By comparison, when government officials waste tax money, start wars, create economic chaos, or get caught committing crimes, millions of voters will defend them and make excuses for them.

During the months following the September 11 attack, when we tried to explain to people that the government was lying about the attack, and that the buildings were blown up with explosives, most Republicans would behave like a horde of termites who were protecting their helpless queen. Rather than look at the evidence we provided, they would attack us as Bush bashers, unpatriotic, liberal extremists, conspiracy nuts, and terrorist sympathizers.

The same thing happened when we pointed out that Israelis were involved in the demolition of the World Trade Center buildings and other aspects of the 9/11 attack; specifically, many people – some of whom were not Jewish – behaved as if we were attacking a nest of Jewish larvae. Rather than look at our evidence, they would retaliate with accusations that we were "anti-Semites", Nazis, or "towel-head lovers".

Criticism of a government official is not an attack on the people of the nation, and it is not unpatriotic. Criticism of a Jewish television executive for lying to us about the 9/11 attack is not anti-Semitism or anti-television. People in leadership positions, whether it be government, business, media, or schools, should be treated the same as waiters and other employees. This animal-like behavior of defending our leaders must stop. Our leaders should be considered as employees who are doing a job.

If a person is truly intelligent and competent, he will be able to defend himself. A real leader does not need a horde of human termites to make excuses for him or defend him. Instead, a real leader tells other people, "You stay here, I will deal with this problem."

We must be able to analyze and criticize people in leadership positions. It is more important to be concerned about the performance of government officials than the performance of a waiter, a dentist, or a pilot. Government officials directly effect the lives and the future of millions of people around the world, whereas a waiter affects only a small number of people in a trivial manner.
 

Applause should be forbidden

Nobody applauds a dentist, sales clerk, engineer, or carpenter for doing his job properly, and nobody should applaud a government official for behaving as a government official is supposed to behave. When a government official does something useful or says something intelligent, the reaction from the rest of society should be, "Well, it's nice to see that he is doing his job properly."

When a government official says something stupid, the reaction from the audience should be, "Is this the first time he has displayed such stupidity? We better take a look at his performance and decide if we want to keep him in a position of importance."

This concept might be easier to understand if you imagine what would happen to society if we treated plumbers in the same manner as we treat the president:  

What would happen to society if plumbers were treated as royalty? One effect would be that a lot of neurotic people would fantasize about becoming a Plumber King. However, those neurotic people would not be interested in fixing plumbing problems; rather, they would be attracted to the pampering.

Imagine a world in which entertainers are paid ordinary amounts of money for their work, and are not given royalties every time a person plays one of their songs or watches one of their movies. Imagine that Madonna, Tom Cruise, Michael Moore, and Jerry Seinfeld must work about the same number of hours that everybody else works, and that all they get in return is ordinary wages. In such a case, they would have to live in ordinary neighborhoods around ordinary people. Who would want to be a musician or an actor if they had to work on a routine basis for an ordinary income? Obviously, only the people who are truly interested in such a profession.

When we treat government officials as royalty, a lot of neurotic people will be attracted to government jobs. They will fantasize about the helicopter rides, the red carpets, and the crowds of people who applaud them. They will not fantasize about the job, the responsibility, or the work.

If we take away the pampering and worshiping of government officials, then a government leader becomes just another employee, and it becomes more obvious that he actually has a difficult job and a lot of responsibility. Without the special pampering, a government leader is similar to a manager of an assembly line, or a research director at Union Carbide, or a supervisor of a construction crew. Who wants those jobs? They are a lot of work and responsibility, and they require a lot of experience and knowledge.

There are lots of children fantasizing about being president of the United States, or prime minister of Britain, but how many children are fantasizing about being the manager of a microprocessor assembly line? Did Ronald Reagan ever fantasize about becoming president of Sony or Krupps? Did Bill Clinton ever fantasize about becoming director of research at General Electric's aircraft engine division?

Most of the people who fantasize about becoming government leaders have no interest in helping the human race deal with its problems. Rather, they are attracted to the pampering, the money, and the feelings of importance.

It doesn't even appear as if the president of America does any work. He is always visiting somebody, sitting in front of a fireplace, having a vacation, or having dinner. When does he actually do some real work? If the manager of a Rolls-Royce jet engine assembly line was always seen in front of fireplaces, having vacations, and having dinner, a lot of neurotic people would fantasize about having his job.

In order to improve government, we must treat government officials as employees, just as we treat sales clerks, farm workers, and engineers. This requires getting rid of this animal-like attitude of bowing in submission before government officials.

We must also forbid government officials from glorifying themselves, such as by putting their photos in government buildings, or creating statues of themselves. Photos of employees can be useful to help people identify the employees, but we don't need photos of top government officials scattered around the nation. Those photos are not intended to help us identify our government officials. Rather, they are intended to allow the top leader to titillate himself into thinking that he is special. It's just a another form of mental masturbation.

This statue of Winston Churchill in a straitjacket is useful for emphasizing the fact that he was mentally ill, but we should forbid statues that glorify leaders. The Mayo Clinic describes Churchill's mentall illness as depression. When will we give ourselves healthy leaders?

Promises are meaningless

The political candidates who are successful in the current voting system are the ones that make promises to reduce crime, increase jobs, and eliminate taxes. However, it doesn't make any sense to listen to their promises. Even a moron is capable of devising wonderful plans. 

“If elected President, I promise to set up a committee of experts to investigate the aging process and recommend solutions to this problem. Read my lips: no more growing old. Vote for me and stay young forever!”

"What has this person done for society so far? What has he tried to accomplish but failed? How do his accomplishments and failures compare to the other job candidates?"

Education and experience are irrelevant

We all learn about life as we grow older, and we all become better at whatever job and activities we do. However, even though you have become better at your job, that doesn't mean you're any good at it.

Perhaps the most obvious example of this is in the area of music. Some people have spent decades learning and practicing how to play a musical instrument, and even though they improved through the years, they are still crummy as musicians. There are some young children who can play musical instruments better than people with 40 years of experience.

Many people use their college degrees or their years of experience as proof that their opinions are correct, or as justification to get a particular job or promotion. Unfortunately, college degrees are only proof that a person attended college, and "years of experience" is only proof that a person has held a particular job for a certain number of years. Experience means nothing. Even the losers have lots of experience. We have to look at what people actually accomplished during their life.

Everybody who is 60 years old has had exactly 60 years of experience in life. However, half of them are what we would call "ordinary"; a large percentage are "below ordinary"; and some are "retarded".
 

What have they accomplished?

To determine which carpenter is better, we don't compare the number of years that they've worked as a carpenter, and we don't care whether they have a college degree. Instead, we look at what they've accomplished as a carpenter. It is easy to compare carpenters because they create things that we can see and touch, but how do we look at the performance of potential government leaders?

Unfortunately, judging the performance of a government official requires we figure out what their job is. Specifically, are they submissive representatives who are supposed to give people whatever they ask for? Or are they leaders who are supposed to make decisions for us? There is a big difference between these two philosophies. We cannot judge a government official performance until we decide what their job is.

The American and British philosophy is that government officials are submissive representatives of the voters. If we follow that philosophy, then we would determine a government official's ability by looking at how well he represented people. For example, in June 2006 Governor Matt Blunt of Missouri signed a Holocaust education bill:
http://stlouis.ujcfedweb.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=186682

Has Governor Blunt performed well at representing the people of Missouri? Not where that particular legislation. Governor Blunt was representing a small number of Zionist Jews who are trying to fool American children into believing the Holocaust propaganda.
If you don't know much about the Holocaust, take a look:
• Holocaust-Deniers.html
• Conspiracies12.htm

During an election, there should be discussions among the voters about the previous achievements of the candidates. If there were such discussions, the voters would realize that all other government officials are failures as representatives, and they are also failures as leaders.
 

We must monitor their performance on the job

When a person is hired at a business, he is often put on a probationary period for the first few months in order to determine if he is any good at his job. If he turns out to be incompetent, he is told to find another job. After he gets through his probationary period, his boss will occasionally review his performance to make sure that he is still doing his job properly.

There is no corresponding probationary period or performance review for government officials. Instead, government officials who accomplish nothing year after year can use the excuse that the previous administration caused so much chaos that it's going to take a long time to fix the problems.

The job of a voter doesn't stop after he finishes voting. Rather, a voter should monitor the performance of the government officials. The officials who don't appear to be doing well as a leader must be told to find another job.
 

Voters insult incompetent government officials rather than replace them

Voters frequently insult their government leaders for being incompetent and corrupt; comedians routinely make insulting jokes about government officials; and many voters grumble about selecting the lesser of two evils when they vote for president.

To understand how absurd this behavior is, imagine if people treated incompetent or corrupt dentists like this. Imagine a person routinely going to an incompetent dentist who made his teeth worse at every visit, and the person's response was to insult the dentist. Imagine if television comedians were making large amounts of money by making jokes about the incompetent dentist.

What would you think if IBM hired some engineers that were incompetent, and the reaction of the IBM executives was to insult the engineers? Would you be impressed by the IBM management?

People who ridicule the incompetent and corrupt government officials are incompetent voters. When they insult their government leaders, they are actually insulting themselves, but they don't realize it. When government officials are doing a lousy job, they should be replaced with somebody better.

You may respond that millions of voters wanted to replace President Clinton after he lied about his sexual activities with Monica Lewinsky. However, the voters were not interested in replacing Clinton with somebody better; rather, they simply wanted to remove him, and they had no concern that the replacement would be an improvement. Furthermore, they did not make the decision to remove Clinton based on a review of his performance as president. Rather, they wanted to remove him because the majority of people are suffering from sexual disorders.

How many people would be honest about their sexual activities while on television? If it is justifiable to remove a president for lying about his sexual activities, wouldn't that allow virtually any government official to be removed? And if dentists, pilots, and doctors could have their license removed for lying about their sexual activities on television, how many dentists, pilots, or doctors would we have?

There is no concern about whether a government official is mentally ill, incompetent, alcoholic, taking bribes, or a puppet of an organized crime gang. Most voters are only concerned about the sexual activities of their leaders. However, in order to make a better government, we must be able to remove government officials for incompetence and corruption.
 

Dominant males attract females

The issue of government officials lying about their sexual activities is especially ridiculous when you realize that female animals are sexually attracted to the dominant male, so it is natural for the dominant males to attract a lot of females. When a man has trouble resisting the females, most people consider the man to be suffering from a character flaw, but how many young men are capable of resisting? It's easy for older men to resist women, and it's easy to resist women who don't appeal to us, but it is difficult to resist women we are attracted to.

This behavior is natural for us, and it developed in animals as a way of ensuring that the better males reproduce more than the inferior males. If we were to remove every male from a position of leadership because he could not resist the females, who would be remaining? And how would removing those men from their positions make our society a better place?

Furthermore, why do we blame the men for this? Why not blame the women? Why not tell women to stop being attracted to dominant men?

At the moment people can be blackmailed over their sexual activities. How many men in dominant positions are being blackmailed right now because they had sex with more than one woman? Who benefits from this hysteria over sex? Are people who complain about this sexual activity truly concerned that these men are immoral? Or are they jealous?

What difference does it make if a dominant male has sex with more than one female? It only causes problems in certain situations, such as when the woman is spying for organized crime or another nation, or when the man leaves pregnant women to fend for themselves, or when he spreads venereal diseases.

It would make more sense for us to be concerned with who the dominant men are. The men who are becoming dominant in society today are often psychotic, dishonest, and abusive. As a result, the females are offering themselves to males with terrible qualities.
 

Governments of representatives have been failures

Most governments today are based on the concept that government officials should be submissive representatives who listen to the desires of the people and give the people whatever they please. This type of government requires that the majority of citizens be intelligent, responsible, honest, and hard-working.

A government of representatives will do whatever the people want, but most people don't spend much time figuring out what they want. Instead, they have various, poorly developed and extremely selfish demands. The end result is that none of the representatives actually listen to the citizens. Instead, they follow the demands of the small number of people who are providing them with money, or who are blackmailing them.

The majority of people believe their government is under the control of "special interests", political action committees, rich people, corporations, the military, or criminal gangs. Millions of voters complain that they want a candidate who will "give the government back to the people". However, the majority of people already have total control of the government, but they are not intelligent enough to understand this concept.

The majority of people are incompetent as voters. Providing them with a representative government is as foolish as allowing children to control their parents. The concept of a representative government has proven to be a failure all throughout history. The majority of people cannot handle such a government.

A society needs leaders, not representatives, but what is a "leader", and how do we determine who is a leader? Is Al Gore a leader? What do we look for? What are leadership abilities?
 

Leaders don't need speech writers

A person who truly excels at carpentry will be able to build a cabinet all by himself. He doesn't need to hire other carpenters to secretly build things for him. Likewise, a person who excels at electrical engineering will be able to design circuits all by himself. He doesn't need to hire engineers to secretly design circuits for him. A musician who is competent will be able to write his own music. He doesn't need to secretly hire musicians to write music for him.

Why do government officials hire speech writers? Why do they have so many advisers? Some people believe that the speech writers and advisers are analogous to assistants and secretaries who help the busy government official, but what is he busy doing if he doesn't write his own speeches or do his own research?

This issue was discussed in Part 4 of the Dumbing Down series. Specifically, it's very easy to put your thoughts into words, but it's not easy to develop intelligent concepts to write about. The people who need speech writers or ghostwriters are the people who don't have anything intelligent to say.

A carpenter creates tangible objects that we can see and touch, such as cabinets or furniture. However, a government leader is like a scientist or musician who does most of his work in his mind. Once he develops some intelligent opinions, it's very easy for him to write about them. Therefore, anybody who is truly good at thinking will be able to write his own speeches, and any musician who is truly good at creating music will be able to write his own music.
 

Leaders don't plagiarize other people

Once you realize that leaders don't need speech writers, it should be obvious that they don't need to plagiarize other people, either. Anybody with talent will be able to create original works of his own. Plagiarism is just another type of crime; specifically, it allows a person to pretend he is something he isn't. A plagiarist is a con artist; a deceiver, a criminal.

When trying to determine if a person should be put into a leadership position, we need to find evidence that the person created some intelligent opinions on his own and did not merely restate somebody else's opinions.

Unfortunately, there is no dividing line between "plagiarizing" a person and "learning from" a person. As discussed in the Dumbing Down series, almost all of our opinions and information about life comes from other people.
 

Leaders can perform on the first day

Imagine hiring a plumber to fix a plumbing problem, and after several years of not solving the problem, he complains that the previous plumber made such a mess that it is going to take a few more years before he achieves any significant progress. If a carpenter, plumber, or engineer is truly one of the most talented in his field, then he will be able to perform his job properly from the first day. It will take more than one day for him to accomplish something, but you will be able to see on his very first day that he is competent.

When somebody complains that a government official is not doing anything to make the nation better, the official will often provide the excuse that the previous government official, or the other government officials, have caused such problems that it's going to take many more years before anything is accomplished. This is just an excuse for his own failures.

A leader is somebody who can find solutions to problems that other people can't. He can face problems other people are afraid of. He can understand problems that confuse other people. His analyses of events will be more intelligent than those of other people. He will be able to devise intelligent remarks from the very first day on the job. Actually, a person who is truly a good leader will have created many intelligent thoughts long before he got the job as leader.
 

Leaders should not surround themselves with idiots

The leaders of human societies behave in a similar manner to the leaders of animal societies. Specifically, the male at the top of the hierarchy tries to keep rivals away.

To understand how destructive this is, imagine it happening with carpenters, scientists, plumbers, or airline pilots. Imagine hiring a carpenter to build a house for you, and he deliberately hires a crew of incompetent carpenters so that he appears to be the best carpenter, thereby making him look like a truly talented carpenter, and discouraging people from suggesting that one of his employees replace him as leader.

Or how about a violin player who sets up a symphony of incompetent musicians so that he stands out as the very best musician? How would you like to go to a surgeon who surrounds himself with incompetent medical personnel?

The best government is one in which all of the men at the top are excellent leaders, and any of them could replace the top leader. Men who surround themselves with idiots should be regarded as unfit for leadership positions.

One of the world's primary problems is that our government officials are incompetent and/or corrupt. Most nations today are allowing their citizens to vote for their government leaders. However, it has been known for decades that these voting systems are easily cheated, and the new electronic voting machines are easier to cheat then the paper ballots.

A lot of people are trying to figure out ways to reduce the cheating in our current voting system, but why should we try to fix the existing system? This system developed inadvertently from ignorant, primitive people. We should study the issue of selecting leaders and consider designing a new system.
 

Why should voters be anonymous?

Our current voting system allows people to vote anonymously. This is also referred to as voting with "secret ballots". The main problem with anonymous voting is that it is impossible to verify that the votes are accurate. The obvious solution to this problem is to prohibit anonymous voting.

If we eliminate anonymous voting, we make it so difficult to cheat the system that we can let people vote from a computer. The government would create a database of voters and allow it to be accessible to everybody. Each voter would enter his vote – and he could change his vote – from any computer, up until the final day of the election.

Everybody would be able to load the database into a spreadsheet to count the votes, or perform analyses. If there was a national database of people – or a worldwide database – we could verify that the names in the voting database are valid, and that the people were alive at the time of the election. It would be impossible for anybody to vote more than once, and it would be impossible for dead people to vote.

Since this is such an obvious solution to the problem of cheating, why do so many people prefer secret votes? One reason is that secret votes makes it impossible to bribe voters, but the main reason seems to be to deal with the issue of intimidation, insults, and ridicule. If we could access a database of voters and see how everybody voted, some people would use the information to ridicule people who voted differently, or they might refuse to hire a person for a job because of the way he voted.

The curtains that people hide behind when they vote are voting burqas. This brings up the issue that I mentioned earlier in this article; specifically, should we hide from crime and bad behavior? Or should we suppress the badly behaved people?

The anonymous voting system has a lot of disadvantages. Besides being easy to cheat, it's more expensive because it requires paper ballots or voting machines, voting burqas, and a lot of people to count the votes and supervise the counting.

Would you approve of anonymous voting for Olympic sports contests, spelling contests, or television shows?

Instead of hiding like frightened rabbits, we should stop the anonymous voting, suppress the badly behaved people, and design a voting system for what we consider to be "respectable" people.
 

How is "voting" different from "hiring"?

Before we can design a better system for electing government officials we have to understand what it is we're trying to accomplish. Why do we allow people to vote? What's the purpose of voting? What are we trying to accomplish?

If the purpose of voting is to allow the citizens to select government officials, then how is "voting" for a government official different from a business that "hires" a person for a job? What is the difference between a political "candidate", and a job "applicant"? What is the difference between "running" for a government office and "applying" for a job? 

The end result of both "voting" and "hiring" is identical: namely, a person is selected for a particular job. Why not consider the voters to be the nation's personnel office? And why not consider the political candidates to be job applicants?

To understand how crummy our current voting system is, imagine if the personnel office of IBM were to operate according to the same principles:

Imagine that the IBM personnel office advertises a job for an electrical engineer. However, this particular personnel office doesn't interview any of the job applicants. Instead, the people in the personnel office are divided almost equally between the two economic parties. Each party will select a candidate, and then the personnel office will vote for one of the two candidates.

Therefore, a person who wants a job at IBM has to convince one of the two economic parties to select him as their candidate. This requires he raise a lot of money and get a lot of support from the other party members. Then the two parties try to convince IBM to select their particular applicant using such techniques as advertisements on television, bumper stickers, and signs for people to put in their front yard.

Most of the people in IBM's personnel office select job applicants according to the economic party they are affiliated with, rather than according to his talent or experience.

Finally, they vote in secret; none of them explain their votes; and every time they vote the end up with a different quantity of votes because many of the people in the personnel department never vote, and some only vote once in a while.

If we consider voters to be a nation's personnel office, and if we consider them to be hiring employees for government jobs, then it becomes rather obvious as to how we can make a better system for selecting government officials. Specifically, we look at what businesses have learned during the past few centuries about hiring managers, and then apply it to government jobs.
 

Selection systems

The procedures that businesses use to hire employees set up a selection system, or a contest. A selection system can be visualized as a sieve that we use to sift sand, flour, and other materials. The job applicants are the items that are sifted.

A selection system is merely a procedure to select something in particular out of a large group of unwanted things. A spelling contest, for example, tries to select the person with the best spelling ability out of a large group of people who claim to be the best, and an Olympic foot race is a procedure to determine who can run a certain distance in the shortest period of time.

When a person is sifting sand with a sieve, what will he end up with? It depends on how the sieve was designed. The same applies to our intangible selection systems. These systems are sets of instructions that we follow, so the winner of the contest depends on how we design the contest. If we change the rules, we can change who wins. To understand this, consider an Olympic athletic contest.

There are lots of rules in every Olympic contest. These rules tell the athletes what they may do; what sort of clothing they may wear; and what sort of drugs or medication is allowed. The rules also tell the judges what to look for; how many judges there will be; and how the judges are to behave.

The rules restrict the freedom of both the athletes and the judges; the rules are tools that manipulate the athletes and the judges. The rules also put a burden on the spectators because it requires the spectators to have some understanding of the rules in order for them to understand the contest. If we eliminated the rules in the Olympic contest, everybody would have "freedom", and it would be much simpler for everybody. So why don't we get rid of the rules? Why should the athletes and judges be treated as slaves?

If the Olympics were to remove the rules, the contests would vanish. An Olympic contest is not a tangible item. Rather, it is just some instructions inside the minds of the athletes and judges. If we remove the rules, the contest vanishes, and the athletes and judges become disorganized individuals doing whatever they please.

We cannot remove the rules of an Olympic contest; we cannot give the athletes or judges "freedom". The only thing we can do is change the rules. The rules set up an intangible sieve, and they put the contestants into this sieve and gives them a shaking. The person who wins the contest is influenced by those rules. If we change the rules, we can change who wins. If we get rid of all of the rules, there is no contest at all. Furthermore, as mentioned in part one of this series, this type of social technology has no value to an individual who is living on a planet all by himself. Olympic contests, spelling contests, political contests, and all other types of selection systems are of use only when there are two or more people.
 

Changing the rules will change who wins

The only difference between a spelling contest, Olympic foot race, Miss America beauty contest, and a pie eating contest are the intangible rules that define it. Changing the rules will change the contest, and it changes who wins.

To understand how important the rules are to a contest, imagine changing just one of the rules in the Olympic gymnastic contests. or example, limagine we eliminate the rule that prohibits athletes from talking. The athletes are not likely to speak during their gymnastic routine because it is so strenuous that they need to concentrate on their performance, so what difference does it make if we eliminate this rule? The only time the athletes would be likely to speak is just before they begin their routine, or immediately afterwards, so what difference does it make if they speak? Why do they have to be treated like slaves and told to keep their mouths shut?

Furthermore, the judges must continue to follow their rules, and those rules require the judges to compare the athletes according to their gymnastic abilities, so as long as the judges follow their rules, the outcome of the contest will not be affected by allowing the gymnasts to speak. So how could this change in the rules affect who wins the Olympic gymnastic contest? The answer is that the judges are human, so they cannot completely disregard what the gymnasts say.

Different gymnasts will different personalities, and they have different coaches. If we allow the gymnasts to speak, some may choose to remain silent, some may give descriptions of their routine, some may sing, and some may tell jokes. The judges are supposed to compare the gymnasts according to their gymnastic abilities, but it will be difficult for them to remain unbiased when some of the contestants are embarrassing or irritating them, and others are entertaining them.

When the gymnasts are allowed to talk, their personality becomes part of the contest. The contest then favors contestants who are both outstanding gymnasts and entertaining speakers. The overall effect on the contest would be minuscule, but there is not much of a difference between one athlete and another, so even a small advantage can help. Occasionally a contestant who would have finished in second place will get first place because he pleased the judges with his vocal performance.

Allowing the contestants to talk will not change the Olympic gymnastic contests by very much, but if we then change another rule the contest will change a bit more, and a third change in the rules will change it further still. The more rules we change the more the contest changes.

The only difference between an Olympic gymnastic contest, a chili cooking contest, a Miss America pageant, and a spelling contest are the rules. Therefore, changing the rules changes the contest. An Olympic gymnastic contest can be transformed into a spelling contest by changing enough of the rules.

Furthermore, some rules have more influence over the contest than others. For example, changing the rule that forbids bribery would dramatically change the Olympics.
 

It takes time to adapt to new rules

When we change the rules of a contest, its effect over the contest will increase through the following contests until it reaches its maximum effect and levels off. You can visualize a change in the rules as a snowball rolling down a hill; the snowball grows until it reaches the bottom of the hill. The reason is that it takes time for people to adjust to new rules.

For example, if we were to change the rules of the Olympic gymnastic contests to allow the gymnasts to speak, almost nothing will change during the first Olympics under these new rules. The gymnasts are so accustomed to remaining silent that most are certain to remain quiet. However, through time that will change. Eventually some gymnasts will talk or sing. The coaches and other gymnasts will notice the effect it has on the spectators and judges. Many of them will soon begin practicing their singing, joke telling, or whatever pleases the judges. They will slowly adapt to the new rules and incorporate their vocal performances into their gymnastic routines.

The people who win Olympic gymnastic contests are not "ordinary" people; rather, they are unusual people with unusual qualities. But exactly what are those special qualities? That depends on the rules of the contest. For example, if bribery was permitted, then the necessary quality to win would be to come up with big bribes. If extra credit events are permitted, then the necessary qualities are to be able to perform well in a lot of events.

A contest is a sieve. The rules set up the screen and give the contestants a shaking until only one contestant is remaining. The person who remains is not an ordinary person; rather, something is "special" about him. But what exactly is special about him? That depends on the rules of the contest. Changing even one rule can change who is sifted out.

The people who win contests for government positions are also "special" people with special qualities, but what are those qualities? Why are they sifted out? What is so special about them? That depends on the type of contest we find him with. Changing even one rule in a contest can give us a different government leader.
 

Should we select just one leader? Or several at once?

The American system of selecting government officials allows only one winner. The Olympic sports contests have three winners.

There are lots of ways to design a system to select government officials. We are not helpless; rather, there is not yet any interest in discussing the issue of how to improve our votinig system, and there is no interest in experimenting with a different system. As soon as people get over these primitive attitudes, we can start improving our situation.
 

Political contestants should not give speeches 

Our emotions expect people to look at our eyes when they are talking to us. We become suspicious or upset if they look away from us, or at some other part of our body. As a result, political candidates spend a lot of time memorizing and practicing their speeches so that they rarely have to look at their notes.

However, when we expect our leaders to memorize speeches and be entertaining when they speak, we force them to become actors whose waste a lot of their time memorizing speeches and hand motions. Our leaders should spend their time developing intelligent opinions.

It's not easy to memorize a speech; consider how long actors have to spend practicing their roles for a play. When we allow political candidates to memorize speeches, their speaking ability becomes part of the contest. This would be acceptable if we were looking for an actor, but this is not a quality we need in a leader.

Political contestants should be treated as job applicants. They should not be allowed to give speeches. They should be judged according to their previous performance, and we should be able to ask them questions without providing them with the questions beforehand.
 

Who wants to be a contestant?

There are thousands of contests every year around the world in sports, music, politics, food, and television game shows. Only certain people are interested in becoming a contestant, and they are only interested in certain contests.

The rules of the contest influence who enters the event. For example, a few gymnasts may quit gymnastics if bribery, speaking, or extra cre