This article and its supplementary pages have photos and descriptions of some of the meals that I've made for myself, but I am not trying to promote any particular food or recipe. Rather, I am trying to encourage you to realize our potential. Modern technology provides us with an unbelievable number of opportunities in regards to meals, farms, restaurants, economic systems, clothing, cities, transportation devices, parks, furniture, and even television shows! As I've mentioned in other files, once in a while we should stop working and ask ourselves,

We shouldn't be passive creatures who accept what life gives us. We should get into the habit of discussing our incredible opportunities, and becoming active participants in shaping our future. I will now give a few examples. I will start with the refining of wheat into white flour.

Where are we heading with the processing of wheat?

Our ancestors had to struggle to produce wheat, oats, rice, and other grains, and their crops were often contaminated with rotten grains, insects, dirt, and bacteria. Modern technology allows us to produce large amounts of healthy grains, and we can easily clean them of dirt and bacteria. We can also deliver them to any location in the world while they remain fresh.

Unfortunately, our primitive economic system encourages us to concentrate on profit, not the nutritional value or flavor of our food. As a result, many decades ago businesses began removing most of the nutrients from the wheat grains in order to produce a flour with a longer shelf life. Other businesses then baked that nutritionally worthless, tasteless flour into breads, pizza crusts, and pastas. The end result was that our medieval ancestors were usually eating better tasting, more nutritious, and much fresher bread products than most of the people today!

Eventually people discovered that the processing of wheat was causing health problems. However, rather than react to the health problems by returning to less processed foods until we learn more about health and nutrition, businesses reacted by fortifying their refined foods with some of the missing nutrients.

Even if fortified bread is just as nutritious as freshly ground, whole-grain, freshly baked bread, I prefer the fresh bread that I make for myself because I prefer its flavor over the bland, refined bread. I would rather change the course that the human race is on and put more emphasis on the flavor, quality, and nutritional value of our meals, rather than continuing on the path of maximizing profits and sales.

Asians suffered health problems from polished rice

By the 1800s, technology had allowed businesses to "polish" rice grains, and most consumers were attracted to the polished rice. People in that era did not know much about health or nutrition, so they didn't realize the polishing of rice was removing some very important nutrients. Lots of Asians began suffering from beriberi. At the same time, businesses in America and Europe were selling medications, sodas, and other products that had cocaine or morphine in order to create some addicted customers.

The polishing of rice, and the addictive drugs in Coca-Cola soda and medical products, are more examples of how our crude economic system rewards people only for making a sale. There is absolutely no concern for whether a product has any value, or whether it is dangerous. There is absolutely no concern for whether anybody does anything useful for society.

We are trying to fix this crude economic system by passing laws to control the behavior of businessmen, but this is idiotic. It is foolish to use an economic system that encourages us to sell products with no regard to the consequences, and then try to pass laws to force us to care about the consequences. We need to design an economic system that is more appropriate for this modern era. We need a new philosophy towards life, and a new society.
 

For optimum health, we need to keep certain chemicals within a certain range, and we need to keep certain dangerous chemical below a certain level. Fortunately, our body has evolved the ability to regulate some of the chemicals that we need. For example, our body regulates its consumption of oxygen to such an extent that none of us need to be concerned about our oxygen levels, aside from people who are suffering from medical disorders.

Likewise, everybody should have the ability to regulate their consumption of water. We shouldn't have to force ourselves to drink water, as many of the self appointed health experts claim. We should be able to let our body tell us when we need water. However, none of us have evolved the ability to regulate or even sense our consumption of certain other chemicals, such as arsenic and caffeine, so we have to consciously watch our consumption of those chemicals.

What effect does caffeine have on us? How does caffeine affect us at different ages? How many foods have caffeine? What level of caffeine is in the various food products that we consume? Since caffeine stimulates our kidneys, does it also increase our requirements for some of the water-soluble nutrients, such as vitamin C or salt? If so, it would be further justification for designing society so that each of us is provided with routine analyses of our health, and taking into account our caffeine consumption in addition to our physical size, age, food preferences, job, leisure activities, and climate.

The Hershey's chocolate company has this table of caffeine levels in some of their products, but what do the numbers mean? For example, a small bar of their dark chocolate has 25 mg of caffeine and 179 mg of theobromine, but what do those numbers mean to me or you? If you consume chocolate, soda, coffee, or other foods with caffeine, do you ever consume so much that it has an adverse effect on your health or your mood? Are there any children consuming these chemicals to such an extent that it is interfering with their life?

Ideally, businesses would provide information about the caffeine level in each of their products, and our society would provide each of us with routine medical examinations to help us understand our particular body and its characteristics. People who consume caffeinated foods and drinks should be able to have analyses done to determine how their body reacts to caffeine. This would allow them to control their consumption of these chemicals.

How does caffeine affect people with blood sugar problems?

When I was younger, I didn't like the effect of caffeine, but by the time I was in my 40s, I preferred to have a small amount of coffee in the morning, and small amounts throughout the day until I decided to eat a meal. I discovered that the effect is useful only when I maintain fairly low caffeine levels, such as having a quarter cup of coffee every couple hours. If I drink just one large cup of coffee in the morning, then I become thirsty, and my body doesn't feel as relaxed as it normally does.

Furthermore, I've noticed that I don't like the effect of coffee if I drink it during or soon after a meal. I suspect that when I eat food, my blood sugar levels are going slightly too high, and that the caffeine worsens the situation. As a result, I avoid caffeine during and after meals. Coffee is beneficial to me only when I am hungry.

I assume that the caffeine is compensating for some problem I have, perhaps by increasing my blood sugar levels, but I don't know. Unless a person's blood sugar reaches extreme levels, doctors cannot be sure whether there is a problem with people like me, whose blood sugar levels stay within the "normal" range. Unfortunately, the "normal" range for many chemicals is very large because we really don't know much about the human body.

How does  your body react to caffeine? Would you benefit from small amounts of caffeine when you are hungry? What effect does caffeine have on children? Does it cause trouble for any of them? Should we restrict the caffeine consumption of children?

We need to alter our society so that we can support research into these issues with no regard to developing a profitable product. We should know how much caffeine is in our food and drinks, and we should be able to get routine medical analyses to determine how caffeine affects us, and how our reaction to caffeine changes as we grow older. I suspect that if we were to analyze the effect that caffeine has on us at different ages, we would discover that caffeine is worthless for most children, a problem for some children, and useful mainly to older adults. It may also be useful for certain types of medical disorders. I suspect that we would come to the conclusion that it is best to restrict the consumption of caffeine for most children.

We should have access to freshness dates of food

Our primitive ancestors gathered their own food, so they knew exactly how fresh their food was. Today we depend upon other people to produce, distribute and process food for us. Ideally, farmers and businesses would clearly identify the dates at which the food was processed so that we could get some idea of its freshness, but our crude economic system causes businesses to focus on profit and sales, and so the businesses and farmers have a tendency to hide the dates that food was produced. You don't benefit from this, and neither do I. So why do we tolerate it?

We are fools to tolerate an abusive economic system

Many people consider it patriotic to support their society, but it is not admirable to support a stupid, crude, primitive economic system in which businesses, doctors, and scientists are encouraged to treat us like animals to exploit for money. We should stop acting like stupid fish and develop an economic system and society for our new era. Businesses, scientists, and everybody else, should be encouraged to improve society.

We ought to be disgusted that our current economic system is encouraging us to look for ways to manipulate, exploit, and abuse one another. We should be appalled that our current economic systems rewards us for finding ways to circumvent laws. We should develop an economic system in which people are rewarded only when they do something that is truly beneficial to society; an economic system that encourages us to impress and inspire one another.

The people who proudly support incompetent government officials, abusive economic systems, corrupt policemen, disgusting crime networks, ineffective school systems, etc., should be regarded as stupid, patriotic fish.

I have heard top executives boasting that their primary concern is their stockholders, or corporate profits. These executives don't care what they do for a living. They remind me of stupid dogs chasing after a bone on a race track. They are not leaders! They seem to have achieved their executive positions through their aggressive, abusive, and neurotic behavior. Many of them also seem to be involved with crime networks.

Businesses have no incentive to provide us with serious information about the caffeine content of their food, or the date at which food was produced, and medical doctors and research scientists have no incentive to help us to understand our body, or how it changes as we grow older. Instead, everybody is struggling to manipulate us into purchasing some product, and with no regard to whether the product has value to us, or whether the product is actually harmful! For example, Starbucks is selling an enormous cup of coffee - larger than most people's stomachs! - but they have no concern that some people may be getting excessive amounts of caffeine from such absurd quantities.

Businesses have no incentive to be concerned about whether their products are useful or harmful. Anybody who promotes the philosophy that we should remain on the path that we are currently on should be considered as a jerk; a fool; a savage who is out of place in modern society.

How should coffee and tea be processed?

The businesses that provide us with coffee, tea, chocolate, and other caffeinated foods always boast that their particular product is the best, but every food product should have a serious description of what it is so that we can distinguish between them, and make judgments on what quantity to consume.

Coffee is an excellent example because there is a wide range of processing methods. At one extreme are the coffees that have a very light roasting. One brand that I tried reminds me of a wheat tea more than coffee. At the other extreme are the coffees that are roasted to the extent that the bean turns black and crumbly. I don't like the "charcoal flavor" of those coffees, but they are excellent as flavoring agents for candy, yogurt, and ice cream.

It's obvious that the different coffees have different flavors, but what is their effect on our health? Does the roasting process cause any dangerous chemicals to develop? Is it better to roast the coffee until the beans becomes black? Or is it better to give the beans a very light roasting?

After a coffee has been roasted, it is packaged and shipped around the world to consumers, but once consumers open the package, what does the oxygen do to the coffee? Does the oxygen merely alter the flavor? Or does it allow toxic chemicals to develop?

Consumers have different ways of producing coffee. At one extreme, we can put coffee grounds into water, and then let the mixture sit in our refrigerator for a day or more. The result is a relatively mild coffee. At the other extreme, we can boil the coffee in water for long periods of time. This results in stronger, more bitter coffee, but are those bitter chemicals dangerous to us? Or are they beneficial?

The same concepts apply to tea and chocolate. For example, some people claim that tea leaves should not be pasteurized, and some people advise us to make tea by letting it sit in cool water for a day rather than boil it. We ought to change our society so that we can provide ourselves with business executives and scientists that we can trust and respect, and who investigate these issues and provide us with serious information!

Where are we heading with wine and other beverages?

Thousands of years ago people produced wine by harvesting whatever grapes were growing in their particular area. The farmers didn't have access to specially bred varieties of "wine grapes" or "champagne grapes" that produced large crops of grapes with extreme sugar levels, and which would ripen at the same time, thereby making it very easy to harvest large amounts of very sweet grapes.

Our ancestors also had to use crude methods to crush the grapes, and they didn't have the technology to separate the juice from the solid materials. The end result was that the wine was made from grape juice that was full of pulp, and lots of pieces of grape seeds and skins. The fermentation process was crude, also, so the alcohol content never would have reached the high levels of wine today. The end result is that their wine had a lower alcohol content, less sugar, and a lot more nutrients.

During the past few centuries, farmers have been breeding grapevines to produce extremely sugary grapes. Modern technology allows us to crush the grapes with such precision that we can prevent pigments from the skin and seed from getting into the wine, thereby allowing us to produce white wines. And all modern wines are free of pulp. Modern technology also allows us to control the fermentation with such precision that the alcohol content can reach the maximum level possible with the yeast of today. The end result is that the wines of today, especially the white wines, have little or no nutritional value, a very high alcohol content, and sometimes a high sugar level.

So, where is the human race heading in regards to wine? Will farmers develop new varieties of grapes that have even higher levels of sugar? Will scientists develop new strains of yeast that can produce even higher levels of alcohol? Will wine producers of the future produce wine that has even less nutritional value?

What is the purpose of wine? Why do we bother to produce it? Our society is putting a lot of land, people, and other resources into the production and distribution of wine, but who among us is benefiting from wine, and what exactly is the benefit? Why does wine need a high level of alcohol?

Rum, brandy, Bailey's Irish Cream, and some other drinks have nice flavors, so they are useful as flavoring agents for foods, sauces, and desserts, but they are not practical as beverages because of their high alcohol levels. Apple cider and apple juice taste good, but some of them are so full of sugar that they are like a liquid candy rather than a nutritious and practical fruit drink. We are also producing a lot of sodas today, such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi, but what value do any of them have?

Where are we headed in the development of beers, sodas, apple cider, and other drinks? I suggest we start experimenting with fermented drinks in which the alcohol content is much lower and the nutritional value is higher. I would bet that the human mind has enough intelligence to develop a wide variety of beers, ciders, wines, rums, and other drinks that have a very low alcohol content and a lot more nutrients. And I would also bet that we can come up with non-alcoholic drinks that are better for our health than the current group of virtually worthless, high sugar drinks.

Where are we going with wine glasses?

We should occasionally stop and review everything that we do, such as analyzing the furniture in our home, the playgrounds that we build for schools, and the glasses that we use for drinking. For example, wine glasses are very delicate, and I suspect that a lot of them break every year. In our current economic system, businesses benefit from such waste by selling replacements, but we ought to stop and ask ourselves such questions as,

"Doesn't the human race have the artistic creativity and engineering talent to design wine glasses that are both attractive and durable? And why are we continuing to tolerate a crude economic system in which businesses benefit from misery, disasters, and waste? Don't we have the ability to create an economic system that encourages cooperation, efficiency, and improvements to society?"

Where are we going with food for children?

Most adults do not provide guidance to their own children, and especially not to other people's children. Instead, most adults behave like stupid animals who titillate themselves with children. Most adults play with children; they don't raise children. Most adults do things to cause the children to smile, giggle, and laugh. They use the children as entertainment devices; they do not treat them as young humans who will become the next generation. To most adults, especially women, a child is like a dildo to stimulate themselves with.

As a result of this crude attitude, schools try to please children rather do than what is best for the children. For example, schools are providing children with flavored milk drinks, but how do children benefit from these drinks?

First of all, some of the chocolate milk drinks may have caffeine, which might cause trouble for some children. Second, the high sugar levels might cause trouble for some children. And finally, a lot of people have bad reactions to milk, so it might be better if we stopped promoting milk. For all we know, milk is one of the few products that should be extremely processed, such as by letting bacteria decompose it into yogurt or cheese.

School should not give children what the children want. Instead, adults should analyze all of our foods and beverages and develop drinks and foods for children that are both tasty and healthy for them.

Let's change the course we are on!

We should stop behaving like stupid fish and ask ourselves, "Where are we heading with our food processing technology?" We are producing a lot of extremely processed foods, such as potato chips, salami, and Coca-Cola, but are these causing us health problems? Will future generations create even more varieties of nutritionally worthless and potentially dangerous bread products, sodas, sandwich meats, and snack items? Or will we change the course of the human race and start putting serious effort into the research of food and nutrition, and start providing ourselves with meals that are flavorful, nutritionally valuable, and healthy?

Let's get rid of the parasites!

Judging by the way most people complain about the price of oil, the corrupt politicians, and the price of food, I suspect that most people have been fooled into thinking that their primary burden in life are the oil companies, the farmers, and the politicians of the opposing party. In my opinion, our primary burden is not the oil companies. Rather, it is the banks, landlords, tax collectors, insurance companies, and other parasites who are trying to make money from our hard work. These parasites are putting a burden on every business, and every individual.

Most parasites are invisible! 

Most people don't realize that society is full of parasites because most of the parasites are in government and corporate offices. We don't see the worthless office workers. Instead, we see the farmers, waitresses, car mechanics, and cashiers. We come into contact primarily with people who are doing useful work for a living, not the parasites who are doing nothing of value.

We need to develop a new society so that nobody can make a living by taking a percentage of our work, or getting royalties over and over. Farmers and restaurants should be concentrating on providing us with fresh, tasty, and nutritionally valuable foods rather than providing large amounts of money to banks, landlords, tax collectors, and other parasites.

Students and old people could get involved with analyses of food and drinks

As I've mentioned in other files, schools should provide the older students with assignments that are actually useful to society so that they can do something productive while they learn a skill, and we should also set aside jobs for old people so that they can do something useful. We shouldn't have adults in the prime of their life doing something that a child or an old person could do.

In regards to food and nutrition issues, a lot of data has to be collected and analyzed, and both students and old people would be able to assist with those type of tasks. By getting lots of students and old people involved, we could speed up the progress of some of these research projects compared to the situation we have right now, in which small groups of scientists are trying to do all of the work by themselves. And this leads me to the next issue I wanted to bring to your attention; namely, my crude, informal experiments with hot peppers and basal cell carcinoma.

A status report on my use of Capsaicin

A few years ago I had three small spots on my face in which the skin was growing at excessive rates, thereby causing flakes of dry skin to fall off periodically. Those spots matched the description of basal cell carcinoma. During the past few years I've been eating dried red chili powder, black pepper, and fresh Haberano peppers (in the photo) in order to see if I can get rid of them with hot spices. I also experimented with rubbing some Haberano juice and some red chili powder directly onto the troubled areas, but that was so inconvenient that I didn't do it very often.

The two green arrows in this photo point to the two larger spots of basal cell carcinoma, but today they are just faint red splotches. The dry, flaking skin is gone! The blue arrow is pointing to the vicinity in which there was one other smaller, less developed, basal cell carcinoma. The hot peppers seem to have eliminated it completely, perhaps because it was less advanced than the other two. I am not exactly sure where it used to be, but it was so close to my eye that it was frightening to think that it might turn into cancer.

The two ovals in this photo show close-ups of the areas that the green arrows are pointing to. As you can see, there is no dry or flaking skin, but the skin is not completely "normal" yet. My conclusion is that the chemicals and these hot peppers really do have an ability to suppress, and/or eliminate certain types of skin problems.

Three, unexpected benefits from the hot peppers!

I discovered some unexpected benefits to large amounts of these hot peppers:
1) I can now breathe properly through my left nostril! For many years I've noticed that something seems different about my left nostril, as if it was swollen deep inside, thereby restricting the flow of air. Also, the left nostril would produce excessive amounts of mucus. Months after eating larger amounts of the Haberano pepper, I noticed that I can breathe properly, and I didn't have the problem of excessive mucus any longer! Apparently the Haberanos fixed whatever was wrong with the inside of my left nostril. Hopefully it is a permanent fix.

2) I had a small, dark mole on my chest that has existed for as long as I can remember, and it was apparently the first victim of the hot peppers. I wasn't paying any attention to it, but one day I noticed that it seemed dry and hard, and after a few more weeks, it fell off, and now all that remains is a discolored dot on my skin.

3) The little spots of dry skin on both of my arms began to vanish! My skin is noticeably healthier now.
 
 

It's possible that a small and continuous consumption of hot peppers can help reduce certain medical problems. It's also possible that in high doses they can get rid of the more established cancers, but then you have side effects to deal with.

One of the purposes of this particular article on food is to explain why we need to change society. It's important for you to realize and understand such concepts as:

1) If it turns out that hot peppers are more effective or safer than chemotherapy or other treatments for certain types of medical problems, then all of us are suffering as a result of our crude society in which doctors, medical personnel, scientists, and all of the rest of us, are encouraged to make a profit and exploit a person's misery rather than look for ways to improve our lives.

2) Even if you don't have basal cell carcinomas, it is in your best interest for society to develop low-cost and safe solutions to our medical problems because it allows all of us to live among people who are healthy and happy, and it reduces our overall healthcare expenses. Furthermore, some natural methods might create less pollution than the artificial chemicals since the natural chemicals are recycled by nature, and you would benefit indirectly from a reduction in pollution.

The fresh peppers may be better than the powders

I started by eating about a half of a jalapeno, and eventually I could eat an entire jalapeno, and later one half of a Haberano. I have also experimented with red chili powder and black pepper. There seems to a difference between them. The Haberanos seem to have a more volatile form of the chemical(s), or perhaps there's just more of the chemical in the Haberanos, or maybe it's just a more "active" form. It would be nice if we had honest scientists who would study these issues with no regard to profit.

What are the side effects?

As with any dangerous chemical, these hot peppers have side effects. In large amounts, it annoys my stomach and/or digestive system, and in even larger doses, it seems to interfere with digestion and the healing of wounds, and it makes me feel miserable, either by interfering with my brain, or by upsetting my body, which in turn affects my mood.

One day I decided to try a large dose of black pepper, so I ground up a spoonful or two, but I didn't feel too good afterwards, so I'm not going to do that again. Besides, the black peppers are an expensive form of that chemical, assuming it's the same chemical! The most cost-effective form seems to be fresh Haberanos. The fresh peppers also have the advantage that it's difficult to "overdose" on them because they have such a volatile form of a chemical that you can't eat much of them. By comparison, if you put some powdered red chili powder into some food, you can quickly consume a large quantity without realizing how much of the chemical you are eating. Incidentally, the way I eat those horrible peppers is to cut it into pieces, mix the pieces with some other food, and then swallow it without chewing it.

This photograph shows a scratch on my little finger, and the area around it has turned red and sore. This has happened a few times after eating a Haberano. This article claims that these hot peppers can increase our metabolism, so maybe that would explain why I've lost about 10 to 15 pounds during the past couple years. Most people might be happy to lose weight, but I didn't have even 5 excess pounds, so I lost muscles that I need! I was worried that I lost weight simply due to deterioration from old-age, so after posting this article, I significantly reduced my consumption of these chemicals to see if I can gain back some of my weight.

Can applying this chemical externally be useful?

After I began consuming these hot peppers, a scab developed over a small portion of my ear, apparently because there was a skin problem on my ear, also. However, that scab will not go away! Perhaps that portion of my ear doesn't have enough circulation to fully heal, or perhaps the skin in that area is different than the skin on my face. I plan to once again try experimenting with putting the chemical directly on that spot to see if I can get rid of it.

Should we eat the seeds of the hot pepper, also?

Another issue that needs to be investigated is whether the most effective chemical in these peppers is in the seed or the flesh. It's possible that as the seed passes through our digestive system, some of the chemical leaks out along the way, thereby giving us a continuous dose, and exposing the intestines to the chemical, which may be useful... or maybe it's harmful! We need some honest scientific research into these issues!

Because each person is slightly different, we have to do a lot of data collection and analyses in order to understand such issues as hot peppers, and this is why I mentioned earlier that I think it would be very important to alter society so that we can get more students and old people involved with some of these experiments.

There are not many coincidences

Have you noticed how many societies have a habit of eating some type of hot spices? The foods that a society eats may seem to be a coincidence based upon their environment, but that isn't true. The food that we enjoy eating are the result of the brutal struggle for survival. For example, a person who is born with an attraction to poisonous or inappropriate foods is less likely to survive and reproduce compared to a person who happens to be attracted to foods that keep him in better health. Therefore, the reason societies around the world developed a tendency to add hot spices to their food is likely to be because the people who were attracted to the spices were slightly better at surviving life, perhaps because the spices helped to suppress cancers, bacteria, viruses, and/or other ailments.

Life doesn't have many coincidences. There is an explanation for virtually everything that happens, although we may not be able to figure out or understand all of the explanations.

Why did the Japanese develop the custom of eating raw fish? And why, when they eat sushi, do they also have a tendency to combine it with spicy green wasabi and pickled ginger? I suspect that the custom of eating raw fish developed long ago when their diet was primarily rice, which didn't provide a lot of nutrition or protein, and the fresh, raw fish provided more nutrition than stale, cooked fish. Perhaps the spicy wasabi was suppressing certain bacteria or parasites in the raw fish of earlier centuries, and perhaps the pickled ginger was helping with digestion.

The way people eat, dress, work, and treat each other is not due to coincidence. All societies are in a battle for survival, and the survivors are those whose behavior is more appropriate. We can see this happening right now all around the world in regards to crime, homelessness, retardation, and corruption. The societies that are doing the least to stop corruption, retardation, and crime are deteriorating at a faster pace. Over a long period of time, the races and societies that do the best job of taking care of themselves will dominate.
 

A lot of cities are trying to solve the problem of low-quality fruit and vegetables by setting up "farmer's markets" that are similar to those of the Middle Ages, but we are fools to try to re-create the past. We should not even try to maintain the present! We should instead consider the incredible opportunities that modern technology provides us, and design a society for this new and modern era.

The farmer's markets were practical centuries ago because people lived among farms. The farmers had only a short distance to travel in order to take their food to the market. However, in modern cities, the farmer's markets are often a long distance away from the farms.

I recently bought some cherries from a woman at our local farmer's market. Cherries do not grow in my city, so I asked her where the cherries came from, and she replied that they were from a farm that was several hundred miles away. I have never been to a cherry orchard, so I asked her about the harvesting of cherrys, and she told me that she had never been to a cherry orchard, either! She told me that the farmer delivers cherries to her once or twice a week, and then she travels to a few different markets to sell the cherries. Like many of the people selling food at the farmer's market, she is not a farmer, and hasn't even visited the farm that is producing the food she sells. She is just an ordinary salesclerk.

 
Later that afternoon I picked up a package of cherries at the supermarket to see if there was any difference, but I didn't notice any difference in appearance, flavor, ripeness, or quality. Actually, the cherries from the supermarket (photo above) had slightly less damage because they were packed in individual plastic containers, whereas the cherries at the farmer's market were sitting in crates, and customers had to pick them up with their fingers and put them into bags. Therefore, cherries from a farmer's market end up with more bruises!

The modern farms, distribution systems, and markets can provide higher-quality fruit and vegetables because they can afford high quality trains and trucks with cushioning and refrigeration. By comparison, the people transporting food to farmers markets are often driving low-cost pickup trucks, and they rarely have refrigeration. Also, the food at the large supermarket is delivered only once. By comparison, the unsold food at the farmer's market is packed up and transported to another farmer's market. By the time somebody purchases the food, it may have been packed and unpacked many times. As a result, food sold at a farmer's market has often suffered a lot more vibration and bruising, as well as high temperatures.

Let go of the past and blaze a new trail for our future!

We should not follow the philosophy of trying to maintain everything as it is right now. We should not try to fix our primitive economic system, or try to re-create the farmer's markets of the Middle Ages. Instead, we must face the fact that technology has dramatically altered life for humans. We are not primitive savages any longer. We need to design an economic system, a legal system, etc., for this new and modern era. Farmers markets are not practical for fruits or vegetables, and they are especially impractical for fresh meat. During the Middle Ages, farmers would take live chickens and other animals to the markets, but that would be ridiculous in our era.

We have to stop behaving like stupid fish and start analyzing where the human race has been, and then we have to make decisions about where we want to go for our future. We should design our society for our new technology. We should not try to duplicate the past.

In order to fully benefit and enjoy our new technology, we have to develop a better economic system, a better government system, a better school system, etc. We should not fool ourselves into thinking that we can improve our transportation systems simply by funding a few high-speed train lines, or an electric automobile, or that we will fix our school system by making some change to the curriculum. We need to start over. We need to redesign our cities, redesign our transportation systems, redesign our economic system, and redesign our school system.

Would better meals create a better behaved population?

When animals are suffering from any type of discomfort, even at a mild level, it can have an effect on their mind and behavior, such as by making them slightly more irritable, or interfering with their concentration. With humans, a mild discomfort can also result in our spending a lot of our time fantasizing about and searching for happiness through money, fame, sex, traveling, gambling, drugs, alcohol, pets, religion, and children.

The world is full of miserable people, and I think the worst of this misery is due to genetic defects that we have no ability to understand or fix. However, from my experiences with food, I think there are a lot of people who are suffering from a very mild but perpetual discomfort as a result of their unnatural diet, and that this endless discomfort is having a detrimental effect on their attitude and behavior. And I also suspect that it is one of the reasons that some people have a tendency to overeat.

If my suspicions are correct, then if we could fully understand health and nutrition and provide everybody with healthy meals, then we would notice a slight decrease in overeating, and a slight increase in overall happiness, which in turn would create a slightly nicer society for all of us, and we would also notice people are doing slightly better at their jobs because they can concentrate more, and because they have a better attitude.

A lot of people believe that they are already eating healthy meals, but we don't really know much about health or nutrition, so let's not fool ourselves. Vegetarians, for example, believe that they are eating the optimum diet for humans, but I don't see any evidence that meat is bad for humans. However, I suspect that most of the meat that we eat today is slighly unhealthy for us because I suspect that humans evolved to eat fresh meat, as opposed to vultures which evolved the ability to eat meat that is partially rotten.

A beef steak that has been aged five weeks might be very tender, and you might enjoy the flavor, but the aging process may have destroyed some of its nutrients, or may have caused some harmful chemicals to develop. It might be better if we were to freeze meat immediately after the animals are slaughtered.

It might also be beneficial for us to redesign our cities so that restaurants can be provided with meat from animals that were slaughtered only minutes earlier.

It's interesting to consider that if restaurants had access to freshly slaughtered meat, the meat would still be warm when they received it, and certain cuts of meat could then be sliced and delivered to us in its raw state while it was still warm! Imagine sitting in a restaurant and being served a warm piece of raw beef in which the warmth was from the animal's body rather than a stove! That would be fresh meat! And that might be a type of meat the human body evolved for!

There are restaurants all around the world that serve raw beef, raw fish, and some other types of raw meat, but not much of that meat is truly fresh. Most of the raw meat comes from animals that were slaughtered days earlier and then refrigerated. The raw meat might taste better, and be better for us, if we could eat it while it was still warm, before rigor mortis sets in.

The point I want to make in this section is that we really don't know much about human health or nutrition, or the effect food has over our attitude or our behavior. Therefore, I think it is very important that you seriously consider redesigning society so that scientists and medical personnel can freely conduct honest analyses of health and nutrition without worrying about sales or profit, and without being suppressed by corrupt government officials who want to promote sugar or suppress hemp.

We must alter society to provide ourselves with fresh meals

Some foods have the most flavor when they are eaten within minutes of preparation. Lobster, crab, and freshly baked bread are probably the best examples. When I grind grains and make bread, muffins, or whatever it happens to be, I eat the items immediately after baking them. I don't even let them cool down. (My page about plastic knives explains how I can cut hot, moist bread immediately after it comes out of the oven.)

Although some restaurants and fish markets are keeping lobsters and crabs alive in order to provide us with fresh seafood, it is not practical for many restaurants to keep live sheep, chickens, or buffalo, or to provide us with freshly ground, whole-grain bread that is only a few minutes old. In order to provide ourselves with truly fresh, healthy, and tasty foods, we must develop new economic system that supports this concept, and better cities that facilitate the transportation of food.

Food is one of our primary sources of pleasure, and meals have an incredible effect over our physical and mental health. Therefore, our primary concern in regards to food should be the taste and nutritional value of the food, not the profit potential. We must alter society so that farmers and restaurants can concentrate on providing high-quality food, and scientists can concentrate on helping us to understand food, health, cooking, and nutrition.

For example, we might provide ourselves with noticeably fresher grains and nuts if farmers would leave them in their shell rather than extract and clean them. Incidentally, this photo shows me holding some wheat that I grew. I was curious as to whether the whole-grain wheat that I was purchasing for bread was actually alive, so I tossed some of the grains in my backyard, not expecting much to happen, but some wheat plants actually grew!

Years ago people discovered that they can extend the shelf life of oats, wheat, beans, and other seeds by heating them to a certain temperature, but is this partial cooking of the seeds good for our health? Or would it be better if we kept the seeds alive until we were ready to eat them? In such a case, we would need to redesign society.

One possibility is to design the city in which the restaurants that are planning to serve oatmeal, fresh bread, or other grain products for breakfast would be provided with fresh, rolled oats, fresh wheat, etc., and the grains would have been hulled, cleaned, rolled, ground, etc, that very morning. Then, the restaurants that were planning to serve breads or other grain products for dinner would get another shipment of fresh grains for the evening.

Why do you bother to live?

If we discover that the grains that have been sterilized in order to extend their shelf life are equally nutritious as the live grains, then we should make a decision about whether we want to use sterilized or live grains according to their flavor. If the live grains produce a tastier meal, then we should keep the grains alive simply for the increased flavor, even if it costs a bit more to society. Remember to ask yourself:

“Why am I living? Why am I working so hard every day? Do I live in order to boost company profits? Or am I doing all of this work in order to create a society in which I can enjoy the food, and the people, and the trees, and the flowers, and the rivers?”

Lots of television shows encourage risky or unusual activities, such as eating raw spiders, but I don't consider those shows to be "experimenting with food". I think our media is under the control of criminals who are exploiting unhappy and psychotic people by stimulating their emotions with bizarre behavior. There are also lots of individual citizens doing risky or unusual activities, and they justify it as "having fun" or being "adventurous", but I think they engage in those idiotic activities because they are psychotic and unhappy, and they are trying to stimulate their emotions in order to mask their internal pains, or bring some momentary excitement to their miserable life.

This is not experimenting with food!

The only people who can justify eating spiders and other foods that humans find unappealing are those who wander around in areas where they could potentially get trapped for a while and run short of food, in which case they need to know which plants, insects, and animals are edible. Some of those people might want to taste some of those "foods" ahead of time just to prepare themselves for these emergencies.

When I promote the "experimenting" of food, I'm referring to people who are in good mental health and who already enjoy life, and I'm encouraging them to enjoy the incredible variety of foods that are available to us today. Modern transportation and farming technology is providing us with access to thousands of different fruits, vegetables, and meats from around the world. We also have the technology to create thousands of different sauces, bread products, sandwiches, pizzas, enchiladas, salads, desserts, and lasagnas.

The Japanese ice cream, Mochi

Unfortunately, most people are not interested in variety or adventure. Most people are like trains on a track. They want to eat the same salads, pizzas, and hamburgers, over and over, day after day, year after year. My mother, for example, as I mentioned in another file, is a "good girl" who does what she is told. She obeys the authorities. She is not adventurous. She gets upset when someone doesn't follow a recipe!

My mother has been to Japanese restaurants, and she likes some of their food, especially the tempura, but she is afraid to try sushi because the American authorities have warned us about potential contaminations by parasites and bacteria. Some Japanese restaurants offer ice cream in such flavors as mango, green tea, and red bean, but my mother didn't have any fear about ordering the unusual ice cream. She enjoyed it, and the next time she tried a different flavor, and eventually she tried all of the flavors that the restaurant offered.

Since my timid mother is adventurous enough to experiment with Japanese ice cream, I assumed that virtually all American adults would be willing to experiment with Japanese ice cream. Therefore, years ago, when I was invited to a informal party in which we were all supposed to bring some food, I bought two packages of Mochi ice cream from Trader Joe's, the mango, and the green tea flavors. I knew that most of the people at this party love to eat ice cream, so I thought this would be an excellent dessert for them because the Mochi that Trader Joe's sells is in the form of small balls covered with rice, which makes it very convenient for people at a party. No bowls or spoons are needed. It is easy to pick up the little balls of ice cream with your fingers, even if the ice cream is partially melted. Also, most Americans that I personally knew didn't yet realize that the Japanese were producing these little balls of ice cream with interesting flavors, so I assumed I would be treating everybody at the party to something that they would enjoy learning about and experimenting with.

I was shocked to discover that virtually everybody at this party looked at the Mochi balls with fear. They looked at the packages and at the little balls of ice cream, and then walked away. Most people were too afraid to try it, but even more shocking is that the reason I brought them ice cream is that virtually all of these people love ice cream! I assumed this would be a dessert that they would all enjoy.

There were one or two people who actually enjoyed the ice cream and ate the entire ball, but a couple people took just one or two bites and then put the ball back on the table!

I was amazed that so many adult men and women were so terrified of this unusual style of ice cream that they wouldn't even try it. My timid mother has more of an adventurous spirit than millions of American men! If this isn't shocking, what is?  However, this fearful behavior explains why Americans have so much trouble tolerating societies that eat differently than us, such as the Asians who eat dogs, or the Europeans who eat horses. And it also explains why so many Americans cannot deal with the lies about the 9/11 attack, or the lies about the Holocaust, or any of the other problems we face.

Would you try Mochi?

If you like ice cream, and if you have not yet tried Mochi, do you think you would be able to do so while remaining calm and relaxed? Or would you have to clench your teeth and spend a few minutes preparing yourself for the experience? Would your heart be pounding as you pick up a ball of Mochi? Would you be sweating and fearful as you bite into it?  Furthermore, some varieties of Mochi that are sold in Asia are even more visually different than those sold at Trader Joe's, such as those with sesame seeds (in the photo below). Would you be able to sample one of these much more unusual versions of Mochi?

I don't expect you to enjoy all types of food, and I don't expect you to experiment with foods that you have already experimented with. After enough of experiments, you start to discover what you like and dislike, and then you can stop experimenting with certain types of food. For example, many decades ago I came to the conclusion that although I like salmon and scallops, as well as some fish, I don't like any seafood enough to eat it on a daily basis. I like seafood only occasionally for variety. I don't need to do any more experiments with clam, lobster, or seaweed to realize that I prefer chicken, pork, lamb, beef, turkey, ostrich, and duck.

I also don't expect people to experiment with foods that they have bad reactions to. I can understand why a person who has bad reactions to dairy products would refuse to try Mochi.

Each of us is defective in many ways

The problem that some people have with dairy products brings up an very important issue that I wanted to remind you of once again. The widespread belief, especially among religious people, is that we either have a problem, or we are perfect. In other words, you either have an allergy, or you don't; you either have diabetes, or you don't; you either have a problem with dairy products, or you do not. In reality, there is no such thing as perfection among living creatures. We all have lots of defects.

If we could fully measure and understand everybody's regulation of blood sugar, for example, we would discover that there is a continuous spectrum between the people with extreme problems to the people who have virturally none, and the conclusion would be that there is no clear dividing line between who has diabetes and who doesn't. Likewise, if we could measure everybody's allergic reaction to milk, peanuts, pollens, etc., we would find a continuous spectrum between the people with extreme problems to the people with virtually no problem.

We would find that the majority of people are between the extremes. We would discover that nobody is flawless. We all have a lot of defects, but most of our defects are never noticed because we don't yet have the medical knowledge or the technology to identify the trivial problems. A lot of us have mild allergies to certain foods, for example, but our reactions are not severe enough for the doctors to identify. And some of us have problems with blood sugar levels, or digestion, or some chemical in our blood, but the problem is too trivial for doctors to identify as a problem.

Some of our problems are so subtle that they can be ignored, but there are probably a lot of us who are occasionally suffering from some defect but we don't realize it. For example, if you have a very mild reaction to peanuts or dairy products, or if you have a subtle problem with blood sugar, then when you eat certain foods, it may cause you to feel slightly worse than you otherwise would, and that in turn can have a subtle but bad effect on your mood, which in turn can have a subtle but bad effect on the way you treat other people, your thoughts about life, and your plans for the future.

Years ago I noticed that I feel better when I have only one meal a day, namely, dinner. A year or so ago I tried once again to eat both breakfast and dinner, but after a few months I decided to go back to only dinner. What is wrong with me? I have some mysterious problem with food, but what? I especially feel best when I avoid large amounts of sugar and refined white flour, so I suspect I have a problem controlling blood sugar, but sometimes I think maybe I just have a problem digesting certain types of foods, or maybe I have an allergic reaction to certain foods. I don't know, but whatever my problem is it's not serious enough for doctors to identify.

A better society would be one in which the organized religions are suppressed, and people can face the fact that we are just defective animals. Schools should help children to identify and understand their limitations, strengths, and defects. The doctors and other medical personnel should help adults throughout our lives because we change as we age, so we have to constantly monitor ourselves.

Would you try my "pumpkin pie pudding"?

Getting back to the point of this section, one of the reasons were having trouble improving society is that most people are afraid to experiment with life, even incredibly safe experiments, such as tasting Japanese ice cream! Most adults follow the same routine over and over, as if they are trains on track. Women are not very adventurous or independent, but adult men ought to be willing to try new foods.

Several times during my life I've made food for people, or purchased some unusual food at a market for people to try for themselves. The people often react with shock or horror. For another example, many years ago I made dinner for a small number of people, and I decided to make a pumpkin pudding for dessert, which I like better than pumpkin pie because it doesn't have the white flour crust which I find to be tasteless and worthless. At that time I didn't grind my own grains. Furthermore, I never liked eggs, and pumpkin pie has eggs in it. At that time I hadn't discovered that I love eggs when cooked to only 70°C (160°F) (my video here). I think the lower temperature eggs are delicious mixed with almost anything, such as tomato sauces, pumpkin, lemon rind, and coconut milk. But I don't like eggs that are cooked at a high temperature.

Since I never follow recipes, I'm not sure exactly how I made that pumpkin pudding, but it would have been very similar to a pumpkin pie, but without the pie shell or eggs. It would have been primarily pumpkin, with typical pumpkin pie spices, and then the other primary ingredient would have been evaporated milk, sour cream, cream cheese, or yogurt, or some combination thereof. And I may have added a bit of Bailey's Irish cream, or one of those similar creamy flavored drinks, as an additional flavoring agent.

I didn't have to bake it afterwards because nothing in this pudding needed baking. It was a very thick liquid, as you would expect from a mixture of pumpkin and cream cheese, or pumpkin and yogurt. You eat this type of pumpkin pudding with a spoon, not a fork. The lack of a bland, tasteless crust and the lack of cooked eggs causes the faint flavor of the pumpkin to be more noticeable, so I think it tastes better.

I put it in the refrigerator, and I remember proudly serving it to them in small, individual bowls. I suppose I described it as a "pumpkin pie pudding" rather than a "pumpkin pudding" because one man, who was a working on his PhD in biology at our local university, asked me why I didn't put it into a pie shell. He looked at his little bowl of pudding for a few seconds, and then he said it looked awful, and he refused to taste it. He couldn't handle the idea of eating a "pumpkin pie" without a pie shell, and with a spoon.

Everybody at the dinner that I served the pumpkin pie pudding to was above average intelligence. Also, everybody but me was a college graduate, and some were working on their PhD. At that time in my life I was under the impression that intelligent people would be more willing to try the type of food that I like compared to stupid people. However, I have since discovered that this is not true. Some stupid people are more adventurous!

When I criticize people who refuse to experiment with food, I'm referring to the people who are afraid of trying something simply because they are afraid to try something slightly different.

I offered Mochi to people who love ice cream so much that they eat it on a regular basis! This is equivalent to offering a Coca Cola from Burger King to a person who drinks Coca Cola from McDonald's every day, but he refuses to taste the Burger King soda because the containers look slightly different from what he is accustomed to.

How is this world going to improve when so many adults behave like animals? An organization can only be as good as its members are capable of making it.

Different people react differently to peanuts, eggs, pollen, and medical drugs. What about Stevia? There are a variety of different methods of processing the Stevia plant in order to extract the sweet chemical. Do different people find some processing methods to be more sweet than others, or with less aftertaste? If so, the ideal situation would be for scientists to deliberately develop a variety of different variations of Stevia so that we can experiment with them and identify those that are the most effective for us. We might even discover that some variations are better for sweetening cold foods, while others are more effective with acidic foods.

Unfortunately, with our current economic system, each of us is presented with a variety of different brands of Stevia, and instead of being provided with serious information about the different processing methods, we have to tolerate idiotic advertisements in which each brand is promoted as the best tasting. The end result is that we have no idea what is different about the different brands, and sometimes different brands are identical because they are made by the same manufacturer.

We should not allow one product to have different names

Incidentally, this practice of a manufacturer producing the same product for different businesses, is another example of how our crude economic system should be discarded and replaced with something better. In our current economic system, a business is allowed to purchase a product from a manufacturer, and then give it its own unique brand name, and another company can purchase that same product from the same manufacturer, but give it a different name. The end result is that consumers are deceived into thinking that there are different products on the market.

Usually each business asks the manufacturer to make some slight modification for their version in order to avoid accusations that they are selling the exact same item, but that doesn't change the situation. Consumers are being deceived into thinking that there are different products on the market. This practice is similar to the concept of "plagiarism". A person is guilty of plagiarizing even if he makes a few trivial changes to the words. Likewise, businesses are plagiarizing products even when they make trivial changes to their versions of the products.

We should have serious information about our products, and honest analyses of their differences, advantages, and disadvantages. Businesses should treat us with decency, not struggle to deceive us. Businesses should also be inspiring one another to improve their products; they should not be plagiarizing each other and fighting with each other. We are fools to allow this abuse to continue year after year.

Don't ignore or underestimate Stevia!

The concept I mentioned in regards to hot peppers applies to Stevia. Specifically, even if you would not directly benefit from Stevia, you would benefit indirectly if Stevia helps other people. Although Stevia cannot completely replace sugar, it is capable of replacing some sugar, and that in turn could improve the health of some of the people who are having problems with sugar. All of us would benefit - even if Stevia helps only 1% of the population! Furthermore, children have a very strong attraction to sweet items, so it's possible that we would bring significant improvements to the health of many children by promoting Stevia rather than sugar.

Our leaders are committing a very serious crime by suppressing Stevia. We need to alter society. Businesses in America are looking at both Stevia and hot peppers with fear. They want to get rid of those products and instead sell us sugar substitutes and drugs with higher profit margins. Scientists, doctors, and businesses should look at Stevia and hot peppers as another opportunity to improve human health.

Unfortunately, the majority of people, including those in leadership positions in government, schools, and businesses, either don't understand these simple concepts, or they don't care. This brings up a very important issue that I mention over and over; namely, an organization can only be as good as its members. We need to put the more advanced humans in control of society, and suppress or exile the most selfish, irresponsible, vengeful, lewd, and violent individuals.

Sauces and spices should be optional

I think the reason so many people feel a need to put sauces and spices onto their seafood and meats is because the meat is either stale or overcooked. If you have fresh meat, and if you cook it at a low temperature, the meat will be juicy and full of flavor, and it will taste so good that you don't have to put anything on it. The sauces, lemon juice, spices, and other items become optional accessories for variety rather than a necessity to mask a horrible flavor or compensate for the dryness of the meat.

Humans adapted to certain types of food

Every animal adapts to a certain type of food. Spiders, for example, love to eat raw flies, and some birds love to eat raw spiders. Humans also adapted to a certain foods, and to a type and balance of protein, carbohydrates, salts, and fats. If we make a meal that is out of balance, we feel a need to add something to it, such as oils, or sugar, or some flavoring agent. Or, when we eat meat that is stale or overcooked, we feel a need to add something to it, such as spices or sauces.

If our medical researchers knew more about humans and animals, then they would be able to analyze our foods and make intelligent guesses as to whether we are eating foods that we actually like, or if we are merely combining ingredients together in order to compensate for foods that have a miserable flavor, or are too dry, or are stale, or are out of balance in some way.

If a particular food is unnatural to us, we will feel a need to process it in some manner, or combine it with other foods. For example, there are particular varieties of green beans and peas that we enjoy eating in their raw state, and without any salt, butter, or sugar. However, most of the other beans, such as azuki beans, mung beans, and Navy beans are too dry for us to chew on, so we cook them, and the red kidney beans are poisonous to us so they must be cooked in order to destroy the dangerous chemicals. This inability to eat the beans in their natural state is evidence that these are not natural foods for humans.

Further evidence that most beans are unnatural for us is that after we have cooked them, we do not enjoy the flavor of the resulting paste, so we combine the paste with other foods to make it more tolerable, such as spices, salsa, cheese, pieces of meat, sugar, or sour cream. Also, many of us (or most of us?) don't like the "baby food texture" of the bean pastes.

Humans were not designed to be vegetarians

If humans were designed to be vegetarians, then our strongest attraction would be to vegetables, and in their natural, raw state, not processed and combined with spices, sauces, or cheese. And especially not mixed with meat! Women seem to have a much stronger attraction to vegetables than men, but not even women want to eat many raw, plain vegetables. Both men and women prefer to put oily or sweet sauces on salads, and we prefer to cook cauliflower, broccoli, beans, zucchini, and most other vegetables, and then, after cooking, combine them with oily or sweet sauces, or spices.

By comparison, almost everybody enjoys eating a fresh piece of meat, and toppings are optional. We love the flavor and the aroma of meat. A lot of people are afraid to eat raw meat, but we truly like the flavor.

How many uses does baking soda have?

In case you hadn't noticed, ordinary baking soda is amazingly effective as a deodorant. I don't know if it kills the bacteria that lives on our skin, or if it neutralizes their odors, but it's an inexpensive method of counteracting the bacteria under our arms. Unfortunately, it's awkward to apply. The reason I wanted to point out the value of baking soda is because I wonder if it has other uses that we don't yet know about because businesses are concentrating on developing more profitable chemicals.

How does vitamin C preserve fruit?

Certain fruits and vegetables, after being cut, sliced, or mashed, turn a brownish color as a result of contact with the atmosphere, apparently the oxygen. Loquats turn brown faster than any other fruit that I am aware of, but when I put vitamin C on the slices of loquat, they retain their natural color for quite a while. How does vitamin C protect the fruit from turning brown? Is it producing dangerous chemicals in the process?

Are the "alternative" cheeses safe to eat?

There are some food products that are described as "alternatives" to dairy cheese because they do not have lactose, but is there any serious research that suggests that these alternatives are good for our health? These alternative cheeses are not "natural" foods; rather, they are "highly processed, industrial food products". There is nothing wrong with an "industrial food", but we ought to ensure that these foods are safe to eat. Furthermore, some of those cheeses contain milk protein, so they are not true alternatives to dairy cheese. A more honest description would be alternatives to lactose cheeses.

There are some vegetarian cheeses that are completely free of dairy and animal products, and although I think they have a nice flavor, I consider their texture to be much worse than dairy cheese. (I don't care for the sticky, slimy quality of cheese or milk.)

Alternative cheeses should be designed for society, not savages

If it turns out that the alternative cheeses are safe to eat, then the manufacturers should stop trying to make them imitate dairy cheeses and instead let them have their own unique flavors and textures. This brings up another important issue that I want to remind you of. Specifically, society should be designed for the highest quality people, not the crude, dishonest, animal-like, lewd, or psychotic members.

As I mentioned earlier, many Americans who love ice cream are afraid to try Mochi because it was different from what they were accustomed to. Don't overlook the significance of this! If a manufacturer were to develop a vegetarian cheese that was healthy for us, but if it looked and tasted different from a dairy cheese, many or most Americans would be afraid to try it. In order to sell a vegetarian cheese, businesses must make it seem identical to a dairy cheese.

The crude behavior of the majority of people causes businesses to deceive and manipulate us. The businesses that produce alternative cheeses are struggling to attract consumers; they are not trying to create a food that is healthy or tasty. I think it is destructive for society to encourage businesses to look for ways to manipulate consumers, and I also think it is a bad philosophy for society to develop products and services for the crude members of society. We should design a society so that scientists and engineers can design products for advanced humans, not primitive savages.

Is it wise to eat stale, roasted, or processed nuts?

The manufacturers of processed nuts boast that their products are healthy, but businessmen have proven time after time that they are dedicated to profit, not consumers, human health, or society. I have had some fresh walnuts and pecans, and they are much better tasting than those that have been shelled at a factory. I suspect that we would have better tasting and more nutritious nuts if we were to protect them in their shells until we were ready to eat them.

Why are people attracted to alcohol?

Young children don't have much of an interest in caffeine, alcohol, or other drugs. However, it seems to me that as people get older, many of them develop an interest in being intoxicated. Some adults like being only very slightly intoxicated, while others want to be intoxicated to such an extreme that they can barely function. Unfortunately, the majority of people cannot face reality. For example, they have trouble dealing with the fact that we deteriorate from age, and they especially have trouble tolerating the possibility that we all have lots of genetic disorders. As a result, most people cannot look critically at themselves and ask themselves such questions as,

"Why do I enjoy being intoxicated?"

Instead, they create a fantasy world for themselves in which they consume alcohol because they enjoy the flavor of the beverage, or because they are a "connoisseur" of beers or wines.

It also seems that most of the people who enjoy becoming intoxicated also prefer to drink with other people, rather than become intoxicated by themselves, and I think it's mainly because when they drink with other people, it helps them to fool themselves into thinking that they are simply enjoying beverages with friends, as opposed to being a "drug user".

I also suspect that the people who are attracted to alcohol are attracted to its ability to mask certain types of physical and mental disorders. It could be an illusion, but it seems to me that a lot of people over 50 years of age develop an interest in a mild intoxication, and I wonder if it's because of the discomforts and mild pains that come along with old age.

Caffeine may help certain people, but only if we are capable of realizing that caffeine is a drug, and that we must control our consumption and use of it. Caffeine won't serve any purpose if we consume it when it isn't needed, or if we consume excessive quantities.

Likewise, alcohol may help some people cope with some of their physical problems, just as morphine and other painkillers can help people cope with surgery and other severe pains. However, using alcohol to relieve pain is not going to serve any purpose unless the people are capable of facing reality and realizing that they are using the alcohol as a way to mask discomfort of some type. They must control their consumption of it so that it doesn't interfere with their work, and they also need to realize that they should not push alcohol on other people because the alcohol is a drug, not a "beverage".

The people who enjoy becoming extremely intoxicated, by comparison, seem to be trying to cover up serious mental disorders. Those particular people can cause problems for themselves and others because their consumption is so extreme that it interferes with their life and their work.

It's possible that alcohol actually works well as a mild pain reliever for certain types of old-age and medical problems, but we ought to investigate this issue to see if there are better painkillers with fewer side effects. Incidentally, those people would benefit if beers and wines had lower alcohol levels because it would reduce the chance that they consume excessive amounts of alcohol.

Should we reduce our consumption of salt?

If it turns out that we should reduce our consumption of salt, then there are two methods to reduce our consumption without changing the flavor of the food to any noticeable extent:

1) Don't use much salt when preparing the food. Rather, let each person sprinkle salt onto their food.
2) Sprinkle powdered salt onto food rather than granulated salt. The reason is that a powdered salt dissolves quickly, which means you are likely to notice all of it. By comparison, the granules take a while to dissolve, and so if you eat the food before all of the granules have dissolved, you eat a lot of salt that never contributed to the flavor of the food.

It's difficult to use powdered salt in humid climates, but a salt grinder makes it fairly easy to create powdered salt. The photo shows a close-up of my finger with some powdered salt that I made by pulverizing salt in a blender. I also use a salt grinder.

One problem with the low temperature cooking of potentially dangerous foods, such as poultry, is that most of us have idiotic thermometers. All modern thermometers seem to be very accurate, but each thermometer was designed to be immersed into food to a different depth. Unfortunately, the thermometers don't have marks on them to show us what depth they need to reach!

Through trial and error, I have discovered that one of my three thermometers needs to be immersed about 50% into the food, whereas another thermometer needs to be immersed only about 25%, and my digital thermometer needs about 10%. The end result is that different thermometers give different readings depending upon how deep they are placed in the food. People who don't understand this problem can inadvertently under-cook or over-cook their foods.

Engineers are certainly smart enough to make thermometers that don't need to be immersed so deeply, and which have a mark on them to show the depth for immersion, but our economic system puts the emphasis on sales and profit, not on producing sensible items that truly improve life for us all. Of course, if we were to implement my City of Castle concept, the food would be produced by restaurants, and then we could easily design much more advanced, much better thermometers because only the restaurants would need them.

There may be lots of "best" diets

I think women have a greater attraction to vegetables than men do, but the differences between men, women, babies, and children - and between the different races of humans - may be more than merely a difference in our sense of taste. Specifically, the most appropriate diet for a man may be different than the most appropriate diet for a woman, and different races may need different diets, also. For example, the races that evolve in tropical areas, in which there is a lot of sweet fruit, may have evolved a greater tolerance of sugar compared to the races that evolve in areas where there wasn't very much sugar.

If we were to understand the differences between us, we might discover that we need several hundred different diets for people of different ages, sexes, and races! In such a case, we shouldn't be listening to the self-appointed health experts who claim to know the most appropriate diet for us.

Do we have different reactions to potatoes and corn?

As a child, I noticed that most people love potato chips and potatoes, but I've always preferred corn and corn chips. It felt as if I was in a minority. Am I? Why do I like corn more than potatoes? Also, I prefer yams much more than potatoes. How much of our preferences for food are due to the environment, such as what we became accustomed to eat as a child, and how much is genetic?

Do we have different reactions to vinegar?

I like vinegar in a lot of foods, and I find that the combination of vinegar and Stevia make a sweet-and-sour sauce that can transform an amazing number of items into a dessert. I usually use "ordinary" white vinegar. However, I have never cared much for salty foods, such as salty olives. Do different sexes, ages, or races have different attractions to vinegar and salt?

Why do we have certain preferences for sodas and other drinks?

When I was a child, most people would drink Coca-Cola or Pepsi, but I never cared for either of them. I rarely drank soda as a child because both my mother and father discouraged the consumption of soda, but of the sodas that I tried, my favorites were Orange Crush and root beer. This seemed to put me in a minority. Why do most people prefer Coca-Cola and Pepsi?

I like the taste of oranges so much that I love to eat the rind, also, as I explained in this video. And I sometimes put grated orange rind, orange pieces, or frozen concentrated orange juice, into yams. Also, for many years I would buy frozen concentrated orange juice and eat it directly from the container for a dessert, as other people eat ice cream. However, I haven't done it for years because I'm trying to keep my sugar consumption down in the hope that a lower intake of sugar will help me.

Is raw corn safe to eat?
 

During a recent, hot summer day, my mother invited the family for dinner, and she had some fresh corn on the cob. I was tired of her overcooking the corn, so it told her I wanted to eat my corn raw. Besides, on hot summer days I don't want hot, cooked corn. I prefer cool, crisp, juicy, raw corn. My mother is not the type of person to fight with anybody, so she allowed me to cut the corn off the cob and eat the raw corn, but it put her into a noticeable state of distress. Several times during the dinner she told me that her brother - whom she regards as an authority - told her that a lot of foods should be cooked. Some people also complain that corn oil is bad for us, or that the fructose in corn is bad. Is it?

I have never had much of an interest in cooked beans. I don't like the mushy, baby food texture, and I don't think cooked beans have a nice flavor, either. I prefer the flavor, the crunchiness, and the juiciness of sprouted beans. Also, I prefer the visual image of sprouts over the baby-food image of cooked beans.

However, as the bean is sprouting, its outer shell is ... doing what? The shell is not alive, so what is it doing while the seed is sprouting? Is it growing potentially dangerous bacteria? Should we take the time to remove the shell? Or should we try to clean or sterilize it in some manner?

None of us are truly nutritional experts!

This section of my article brings up just a few issues about health and nutrition that nobody has proper answers to. Until we have a much greater understanding of food and nutrition, nobody should make the claim that they are a nutritional or health expert. So, be suspicious of the people who claim to be such experts. They may be arrogant jerks who merely think they are experts, but they may also be con-artists who are trying to make a lot of money through the sales of books and videos.

It's acceptable to listen to what the self-appointed experts have to say, but keep in mind that you may actually know more than they do.

When I was a child, people were willing to crack their own walnuts, pecans, and almonds, but today people are taught that the ideal way to enjoy life is to do as little work as possible. Many people today have been fooled into thinking that the key to happiness is to become rich, and then pay other people to pamper you like a baby. Many people even believe that eating soft foods is better than eating food that requires chewing. As a result, a lot of restaurants and businesses boast that they offer meat that "melts in your mouth"!

Why not take this attitude to an extreme and develop liquid foods that we drink? Then we don't have to chew anything! Or, we could go one step further and extract all of the nutrients that we need, and connect ourselves to a bottle of nutrients when we are hungry. Then we don't even have to bother drinking.

Happiness comes from work, not pampering

When you are sick, weak from old age, recovering from surgery, very tired, or just want a brief vacation, it is nice to be treated like a baby, but if you are in good physical and mental health, you will enjoy life more if you have useful problems to solve, especially if you can work with people you enjoy.

I don't think we should encourage the attitude that the key to enjoying food is to produce very soft foods that don't require chewing. I also don't think we should encourage the attitude that our food should be processed for us, such as removing pecans from their shells. In some situations, it's useful for a restaurant to provide us with seedless olives, or pecans without shells, but we shouldn't promote the attitude that life will be better when our food is always processed and always soft. We should instead promote the attitude that life is most pleasurable when we have activities to engage in, and when we can have friends to share life with.

Relaxation and pampering are fun once in a while, but we should not promote it as a desirable lifestyle. It should be desirable only to people who are old, weak, or sickly.

I prefer dinner to be slow, relaxing, and quiet

When people are working during the day, it's understandable that they sometimes want to - or must! - eat breakfast or lunch at a rapid rate, but I prefer that we redesign our society so that our dinner can be eaten in a much more relaxed manner, and we should also have the option of making it a social affair.

I have dozens of photos in the supplementary articles to show you some of the meals that I've made for myself, and many of those meals may appear to be sloppy and messy, such as the pizzas that are drenched in sauces and chicken juice. My sandwiches do not resemble the typical sandwich in which two pieces of relatively dry bread enclose some type of dry filling, and the entire sandwich can be easily picked up with your fingers. Instead, I almost always make sandwiches by laying a slice of bread on a plate, and then putting some topping on it, and I deliberately allow that bread to become soggy with sauces or meat juice. I then eat the sandwich with a knife and fork, rather than my fingers.

When I eat meat that has not been cut into pieces, then I need to use a stainless steel knife and fork, but when possible, I use plastic knives, forks, and spoons for two main reasons. One is that the plastic utensils make less noise when they contact the porcelain plates and bowls, and I prefer quiet dinners. Second, the plastic forks and knives are less effective at cutting food, thereby forcing me to eat at a slower pace. I enjoy delicious meals, and I want to enjoy them for more than just a few minutes.

However, I don't go to the extreme of deliberately eating tiny pieces at a very slow pace. Actually, this brings up an interesting issue about human minds. When we eat food in tiny little pieces, then we don't enjoy them as much as when the pieces are a certain size. Our mouth and mind was designed to eat food in certain portions, and if we have too much in our mouth, or too little, we don't enjoy it as much.

I prefer the multi-course style of dinner

The two primary methods of eating dinner are:
1) Full course dinner. Put all of the food on the table at the beginning of the dinner.

2) Multi-course dinner. Prepare a small portion of food for each person, and then let them eat that portion while it is fresh and warm. Then prepare another small, fresh portion, and so on.

Five advantages to the multi-course philosophy
 

	1)	It is easier to provide fresh, warm meals when they are small.
	2)	It extends the dinner through a longer period of time. This is nice when you are eating delicious food, or when having dinner with people you enjoy, or when there is entertainment between the portions of food.
	3)	It is easy to separate the foods that require different digestive processes. As we learn more about food and digestion, we may discover that it's better for us separate certain foods, as opposed to eating a mixture of foods. For example, we might find that we digest our food better when raw vegetables are eaten by themselves, and then we give them a chance to digest before we eat meat or sugary fruits.
	4)	It's easy to arrange the food from the most faint flavor to the strongest flavor. We are most sensitive to food when we are hungry, so to truly enjoy the foods with faint flavors, they must be eaten at the beginning of the meal. For example, the mushroom "soup" that I make at a low temperature (in this video) has a very faint flavor, so I eat a small amount as an appetizer at the beginning of a meal.
	5)	The multi-course philosophy leads to a "multi-restaurant" philosophy. When we encourage restaurants to produce multicourse meals, people get into the habit of having only one small portion of their meal at a time. This makes it easy for people to understand the concept of a "multi-restaurant meal". In one of my scenarios about a City of Castles, I suggest the city support a wide variety of restaurants, including people who operate on a part-time basis, such as one day per week, or one day per month. The city would provide an area that was full of restaurants, and there would be a wide variety of food, and some of them would provide full courses, and others would provide only portions of the meal. None of the chefs at the restaurants would be concerned about landlords, taxes, or banks. The city would be in control of all of the buildings and equipment. The chefs would only be concerned about providing meals that we appreciate. There are probably a lot of people who would enjoy operating a restaurant on a part-time basis, but they would not necessarily want to provide complete meals. Some people might enjoy providing a salad bar one day a month, for example, and another person might enjoy making chicken wings or other meat items one day a month. The people who live in the city could choose to go to restaurants that give full courses, or they could choose a restaurant that provides just one portion of the meal, and then they could walk a short distance to another restaurant and get another portion of their meal. They could also get together with other people in the other restaurants. The advantage with this type of philosophy is that it provides us with more options for meals, and it provides more people with the opportunity to be a chef. It also encourages people to get out of their house and socialize.

There are so many potential variations for meals today that it is possible for us to have a different dinner every night of our lives. Restaurants don't actually have to follow recipes. All they have to do is take a few standard recipes and make modifications each night. Some of the dinners would be very similar to one another, but they would not be exactly the same. Consider pizzas as an example. First of all, how do we want to define the word "pizza"? As I've pointed out in other files, we don't yet have any authority for language, so all languages are in a state of chaotic and random development. In this series of articles about food, I will use the word "pizza" in that rather non-specific manner to refer to any flat piece of bread that is covered with a sauce, and possibly some other ingredients as a topping. With that simple definition, there are millions of variations of "pizzas".

The bread that we use for the pizza crust, for example, doesn't have to consist of highly refined wheat flour. There are lots of different grains available for us to combine in different proportions, thereby providing ourselves with lots of pizza crusts with a wide variety of flavors and textures. For example, a pizza crust could be made of a mixture of whole-grain wheat and oats, or a mixture of whole-grain wheat, Kamut, rye, and amaranth. I also like pizza crusts in which millet is the primary grain, with some wheat and/or Kamut to provide the strength necessary to form a crust.

Furthermore, there is no rule in the universe that forbids us from adding other ingredients into the pizza crust. For example, I think a pizza crust is excellent with corn kernels, (as in the photograph below). A pizza crust can also contain rosemary, caraway seeds, and even raisins.

Next consider how many options we have in regards to a pizza sauce and additional toppings for the pizza. There are lots of variations of tomato sauces, and there is no requirement that we use a tomato-based sauce. A pizza is delicious with the green chili coconut sauce from Thailand, for example, and with the masala simmer sauce from India.

We don't have to eat the same pizza twice

We have the technology to create a wide variety of whole-grain pizza crusts, with different flavors and textures, and a wide variety of pizza sauces, and a wide variety of toppings for the pizza. We don't have to eat the same nutritionally worthless, bland pizza over and over.

Furthermore, this concept applies to other foods. We have an unbelievable number of possible variations for soups, casseroles, lasagnas, sandwiches, and eggrolls. A restaurant chef could make a different variation every day of his life, if he wanted to. However, this assumes that he has customers that are willing to eat different variations of pizzas, lasagnas, and soups. I think most people would have trouble accepting a restaurant in which the food was slightly different every night.

We also have the technology to create thousands of different types of sausages. Furthermore, sausages have an advantage that we can grind up foods that are good for us, but which we dislike. For example, if it turns out that cartilage, tendon, egg shells, bones, or other items contain valuable nutrients, then those items could be ground up and mixed into sausages, thereby giving us some of the nutrients we need in a delicious package.

I would also bet that we are capable of developing a variety of tasty and nutritious "dessert sausages" in which we combine raw or lightly cooked fruits with one another, or combine fruits with certain types of vegetables or sprouts, and then put the ingredients into some type of non-meat casing that doesn't require cooking. If the sausages were bite-sized, then they wouldn't have to be cut with a fork or knife. This would be a convenient way to provide ourselves with a healthy dessert that consists of a mixture of fruits and/or vegetables.

In a previous article of this series, I mentioned possibility of having social events, such as making sausages. When you realize that we have millions of possible variations of sausages, and other foods, then if a city were to hold these type of events in which people are getting together to make sausages, pizzas, or other foods for city festivals, the people wouldn't have to follow a recipe. Rather, they would have an experienced chef who provides them with guidance, and they would create new varieties of foods. That would make the event more enjoyable, at least to some of us.

With our current economic system, businesses fight with each other to make profit and manipulate consumers, and most people are working at a job with no regard to whether their effort has any value to human life. Most people think only of money and retirement benefits. However, we could change society and our attitude so that we are working to improve life for ourselves. We could enjoy one another, and all of the opportunities that modern technology provides us.

Restaurants, for example, instead of struggling to provide large amounts of money to banks, landlords, insurance companies, and tax collectors, could be concentrating on providing us with a variety of healthy foods that taste delicious, and they could provide us with an environment in which we can relax as we eat, or socialize, or be entertained. We could be enjoying life rather than making a small number of parasitic and selfish people extremely wealthy.

My experiments with food have brought me to the conclusion that there are three critical temperatures:

• Heating food, 40°C to 50°C (110°F to 120°F)

This is a good temperature for warming fresh walnuts, pecans, and other nuts.

• Most seafood and meats: stop cooking between 50°C to 60°C (125°F to 140°F)

When cooking seafood and most meats, with the exception of poultry, I prefer the meat brought to a temperature of between 50°C to 57°C (125°F and 135°F). If the meat goes above 60°C (140°F), it starts losing its juice, which causes it to become it dry, hard, and tasteless.

• Poultry and eggs: stop cooking when it reaches 70°C (160°F)

Many years ago I cooked a turkey breast for dinner, and I was thinking that the meat near the bone looked a bit undercooked, but I ate it anyway, and then I had a horrible stomach ache that lasted for several days. I don't know if it was due to the turkey, but I am now very careful to make sure poultry reaches 70°C.

Eggs are rarely contaminated with bacteria, so it is safe to eat them raw, but I prefer the texture and flavor of eggs that are brought up to 70°C. The egg white transforms into a gel, and it slides out of the egg very easily. If you want the egg to be more firm, then let it sit at 70°C for a longer period of time. Don't turn up the temperature! If you increase the temperature above 70°C, the egg starts transforming into a solid material, and it becomes dry, and the flavor changes.

I have two techniques for cooking eggs:
1) If the eggs are cold, or the shells are thin (typical eggs have thin shells), I put the eggs into a pan of water, and then I turn my stove onto its lowest possible setting, and I let the water slowly rise in temperature to 70°C. This takes almost 10 minutes. Then I turn off the stove and let the eggs sit in the water for a few minutes more. This avoids cracking the delicate shells.

2) Some chickens are producing eggs with very thick, strong shells, and if you have those eggs, then you can put them directly into water that is already at 70°C, and then you can let it sit there for about 10 min.

Low temperature cooking is ideal for seafood

There are two significant advantages to cooking seafood at low temperatures. One is that most seafood becomes dry and tasteless at high temperatures, and the other is that the low temperature method doesn't create that horrible fish stench that makes your house smell terrible.

Although I like raw salmon in sushi, I prefer salmon that has been cooked at a low temperature. I don't like seafood as much as I like beef, pork, chicken, and other food from the land, so I haven't experimented much with seafood to determine what temperature I prefer salmon and other seafood to reach, but it seems that I prefer salmon and albacore to be brought to a temperature between 50°C to 60°C (120° and 135°F).

Low temperature chicken is fantastic!

The fear of salmonella is causing most people to overcook chicken. At this page I have photos and descriptions of how I cook chicken up to 70°C (160°F), and this results in delicious, tender, and flavorful chicken sandwiches, soups, and even pizzas! The photo below shows a sandwich I made with the meat from a chicken leg.

People who are frightened by Salmonella are denying themselves one of the joys of life; namely, juicy, tender, flavorful meat!

Low temperature beef, pork, or lamb soup

The method I use to cook salmon can also be used for cooking beef, pork, lamb, veal, and other types of meat. You can cook large pieces of meat, or cut them into strips or cubes. Simply put the meat, or pieces of meat, into a covered container, and then let that container sit in water that you maintain at whatever temperature you prefer. In the case of beef and lamb, I let them reach a temperature of between 51°C to 57°C (125°F to 135°F). I perfer pork to reach a temperature of between 54°C to 60°C (130°F to 140°F). Click here for info and photos.

Low temperature cooking is often quicker

One of the advantages of low temperature cooking is that in some cases, you can prepare meals at a faster pace. For example, when making a chicken soup, all you have to do is bring the chicken to 70°C, and the soup is finished. You don't have to wait for the soup to reach the temperature of boiling water. In fact, if you let the soup go above 70°C, the chicken becomes dry. Also, when you boil soup that has vegetables, then the vegetables can become mushy and tasteless.

There are always news reports of people getting sick or dying from salmonella or E. coli, but during the spring of 2011 there were an unusually large number of frightening news reports of people getting sick in Europe. Many government officials and news reporters reacted with paranoia and wild accusations, such as accusing Spain of selling contaminated cucumbers, advising people to cook food "thoroughly" to sterilize it, and demanding that lots of food be destroyed without bothering to find evidence that the food was contaminated!

The proper reaction to bacterial contamination is to investigate the situation and look for ways reduce or eliminate the problem. Our goal should be to provide ourselves with food that we feel safe to eat.

We are foolish to live in fear of bacteria, and we are even more foolish to destroy enormous amounts of food without first looking for evidence that it is contaminated. Furthermore, even if some food is contaminated, that doesn't justify destroying any of it. It may be possible to clean the food! And even if the contaminated food cannot be cleaned, that doesn't justify destroying large amounts of other food that was never shown to be contaminated. 

Don't hide from criminals or incompetent officials, either!

We should consider the possibility that many of these strange bacterial contaminations are deliberate operations by crime networks. We should not live in fear of criminals, incompetent businessmen, dishonest lawyers, or corrupt policemen. We should not live in fear of teenage gangs, either, or even badly behaved children. Instead, we should face our problems and look for ways to eliminate them. We should create a society in which we respect and trust the businessmen, lawyers, farmers, restaurants, and government officials. The proper reaction to disgusting leadership is to experiment with changes in society and try to provide ourselves with leaders that we can be proud of.

Overcooking may be more of a threat than salmonella!

An interesting issue to consider is whether the paranoia of bacteria is resulting in more harm than good. It may be safer for us to risk salmonella contamination than to eat food that has been overcooked.

For example, there may be some people who are so afraid of bacteria that they are overcooking virtually all of their food, resulting in low nutritional levels, which in turn is putting them in poor health. These people may be suffering long-term but mild health problems as a result of their paranoia of bacteria. In such a case, their health would improve if they were to reduce their fear of bacteria and reduce the cooking temperatures and/or cooking times of their foods.

Are you afraid of dust?

Throughout most of human history, people were completely oblivious to the concept of bacteria and viruses, and so they didn't worry about cleaning their hands, or about people coughing or sneezing.

During the past century, people have discovered that bacteria is everywhere, but instead of reacting in a sensible manner, some people have been developing a paranoia of contamination. I also picked up this paranoia as I was growing up. We were frequently advised to clean our hands several times throughout the day; scrub ourselves in the shower with soap and shampoo at least once a day; clean or discard food items that touch the floor; and never share eating utensils, drinking glasses, or food with other people because their mouth is full of dangerous bacteria. I have since come to the conclusion that we are developing an absurd paranoia that needs to be reduced by several orders of magnitude. It is certainly true that the people who are suffering from defective immune systems must live in a very clean environment, but the majority of us don't need to be so afraid of bacteria.

Did you know that every time you take a breath of air, your nose and lungs are collecting particles in the air and sending them to your stomach for digestion? Dust is not a sterile, inert substance. Although most of it may be tiny bits of harmless rock, it's also full of live bacteria, yeasts, viruses, and pieces of disgusting materials from birds, humans, and animals. It also has bits and pieces of automobile tires, asphalt roads, insects, and people's clothing. In some areas of the world, the dust also has lots of tiny pieces of industrial waste, some of which is toxic or radioactive.

You are breathing dust all day, and even during the night while you are sleeping. A lot of it gets stuck in the mucus in your lungs and nose, and from there it travels to your stomach. You are constantly eating this disgusting dust, but are you afraid of it? Do you live in fear of it? Imagine if a restaurant were to collect a few spoonfuls of dust, and then sprinkle it over your food. You would be horrified, but you may be eating that much dust every day!

This is some of the dust in my house.

The phrase "Ignorance Is Bliss" applies to dust. Most people are unaware that they are constantly eating tiny bits of dog poop, automobile tires, toxic chemicals, and saliva spray, as well as live bacteria, viruses, and mold spores. However, many of those same people are paranoid that they will get sick if they eat rare meat, or food that was touched by somebody!

What do fumes from bleach do to us?

Many Americans, especially women, use bleach and ammonia on a routine basis to clean kitchen sinks and other items in their homes. When these chemicals are used by the employees of a business, the workers are protected from the fumes with guidelines on what concentration is safe for them to breathe or contact, and if the employees have to work with high concentrations, they are protected with special gloves, ventilation systems, and in extreme concentrations, gas masks.

By comparison, people - including children! - are using these chemicals at home with no regard to the potential dangers. Most people have no way of even measuring the level of ammonia that they are breathing, and who among us has any idea of what we are breathing when we use bleach? What chemical(s) is coming out the bleach and getting into our lungs? Is it chlorine gas? When people use these chemicals at home, does the concentration of chlorine, ammonia, or other gases reach a level that is dangerous? If so, how often? Is the chemical doing any harm to our lungs, sense of smell, eyes, or health? What happens when we get bleach on our skin? Do any of us suffer from health problems, lung damage, or skin disorders as a result of household bleach or ammonia?

Furthermore, why is this dangerous chemical allowed to be sold with pleasant scents? This seems as ridiculous as providing natural gas with a wonderful lemon scent, or making flavored gasolines, such as vanilla, strawberry, and apple. How about rum flavored isopropyl alcohol?

I'm not discussing the dangers of bleach or dust to create a fear of them. Rather, I want to point out that there are a lot of people who are paranoid of salmonella, E. coli, sushi, raw corn, and raw beef, but they don't have any concern about the damage they may be doing to themselves by breathing bleach fumes, and touching bleach with their skin.

We need to redesign society so that we can provide ourselves with leaders who provide better guidance, and in which the scientists can study food, bleach, health, and other issues with no concern about profit.

We should design an economic system so that all of us are provided with jobs that are truly useful for society. We should be doing work that is beneficial to all of us. We should be working at understanding life, making better cities, and providing ourselves with wonderful meals. We should not be working at jobs in which we try to deceive consumers, abuse government laws, destroy other businesses, manipulate children into desiring certain products, or profit from other people's hard work.

The photo below shows some apricots that I recently picked. The apricots that are sold at the markets look much nicer than mine, but mine have an incredibly wonderful flavor, whereas the commercial apricots have a terrible flavor. It is not practical for markets to provide this particular variety of apricots, especially not when they are ripe, because they are much too soft, and after a day or two, they ripen even further, and become even softer. I have to be careful with them. In order to provide ourselves with apricots that are truly ripe and delicious, we need to develop robotic devices to harvest, pack, and transport the fruit for us.

The photo below shows a fig from my tree, which is another fruit that is much too soft and juicy to be practical for markets. Furthermore, juice sometimes oozes out of fresh figs, which caused mold and attracts insects. Fresh, truly ripe figs would be practical only if we had robotic equipment that could harvest them very carefully, and then rapidly deliver them to people who were ready and waiting for them.

 
Some people believe that the solution to soft, juicy fruits is to breed the fruits to be more firm and tough, but avocados are a good example of how that is not the solution. Avocados are an unusual fruit because they don't ripen while on the tree. They are picked while they are still very hard, and then they require 7 to 10 days to fully ripen. However, even though they are hard when they are picked, by the time they have reached consumers, they are full of bruises and rotten spots. In order to provide ourselves with truly good high-quality avocados and other fruits, each of them has to be carefully placed on something like foam rubber so that they doesn't bang into each other, or into the walls of the container.

Have you ever contemplated the advantages of robotic farms?

As computer and robotic technology becomes more advanced, there will be a point at which we are capable of developing completely automated farms in which robots do all of the planting, weeding, and harvesting. A robotic farm can be smaller in size because the robotic equipment can travel overhead, so no walkways are needed between the rows of plants. Since robots can harvest and transport food with less damage, the size of the farms could be reduced a bit more because the farms would not need to produce extra food to compensate for the damage during harvesting and transportation.

The smaller a farm is, the more practical it is to place in or near a city, which in turn makes it easier to transport food from the farm to the city. Furthermore, smaller farms make greenhouses more practical because there is less area that needs to be enclosed. Therefore, robotic farming equipment would make greenhouses more practical, thereby providing the residents of the city with fresh fruits and vegetables that don't grow in their climate.

Have you ever contemplated the advantages of a city that could plan its meals?

A lot of food is wasted because farmers are producing food with no regard to whether anybody wants it. If society was better organized and if the people were more cooperative, then restaurants and individual citizens could provide farmers with some idea of which foods they want to eat in the upcoming months, and in what sort of quantities, and this would enable the farmers to do a better job of producing only the food that will actually be eaten, as opposed to the situation we have today in which farmers are producing enormous amounts of food with no idea if anybody wants it.

In one of my scenarios for a City of Castles, I point out that the city government could support a wide variety of restaurants, thereby allowing meals to be free and avoid the need to provide homes with kitchens. People would get their primary meals from restaurants. Now imagine a more extreme situation in which the farmers and restaurants are so cooperative that they work together to plan the foods to produce. In other words, the chefs would give the farmers some estimates of the type and quantity of fruits, vegetables, and meats they want to use during the upcoming year, and the farmers would arrange to produce that amount of food.

While this may seem to be a burden on the restaurants, it simply requires the chefs and farmers to be cooperative. It's easy for a chef to estimate the amount of meat, fruits, and vegetables that he wants for the upcoming year. He doesn't have to be perfect with his estimates; rather, he only needs to give the farmers a good approximation of what he is planning to do.

The chefs would not be forced to follow any particular recipes. Rather, they would simply make meals based on the type of foods that they had requested from the farms. That is not a burden on the restaurants because when you realize - as I point out in this series of articles - that there are so many variations of meals that restaurants don't have to follow recipes, then you should also realize that it would be easy for restaurants to make meals in this scenario because if they ran out of a particular ingredient, they simply make a variation of the meal with some other ingredient.

A level of cooperation to this extent would enable the farmers to do a much better job of producing only the food that will actually be eaten. This would allow the farms to be made even smaller in size, which would make greenhouses even more practical. Furthermore, the smaller farms would require fewer robots, less maintenance, less electricity, less fertilizer, less water, and fewer farmers, thereby making the food less expensive and society more efficient.

The point I'm trying to make with this scenario in which restaurants estimate their food usage is that the more cooperative a group of people are, and the more willing they are to coordinate their activities and plan for their future, the more incredible their opportunities are. Likewise, a society in which people can work around problems will be much more efficient compared to people who have temper tantrums about not "getting their way". For example, if there is a bad harvest of a particular food, the chefs should work around the problem rather than whine about how they must have a particular food.

So, why not fund the development of robotic farms?

I think that the human race already has the technical ability to create robotic farms. I think that all we have to do is fund the development of this equipment. I don't think it requires any new technology. We have computers, video cameras, and other sensors that are capable of analyzing the ripeness of fruits and vegetables, and we already have robotic arms that are capable of carefully picking the items and putting them into containers that have foam rubber to separate each item so that they don't bruise one another. I think that we also have the technical ability to create robots that can identify and remove weeds and insects.

We should provide ourselves with high-quality food

Today we are capable of creating advanced farms with a lot of robotic devices to control insects, animals, weeds, and birds. We are also capable of creating greenhouses to provide ourselves with food that wouldn't grow in our climate. We are capable of creating transportation systems that allow robotic harvesting machines to pick food very gently to harvest fruit, vegetables, and other food in a gentle manner, and place it in a container, and then gently transport that down special transportation lines to the market to reduce bruising, shaking, and vibration. We are also capable of designing these transportation lines to provide proper refrigeration or freezing temperatures if necessary.

Fresh fruits and certain other food items that people snack on would be sent to markets where people could pick up individual items. The meat, and most of the other food that needs to be cooked, would be transported directly to the restaurants.

If we were to implement my "City of Castles" concept, then most people would rarely, if ever, grow their own food or cook their own meals. Ideally, people would not even have to bother purchasing food; I think we should just provide it for free. In my day dreams, the farmers concentrate on quality, not profit, and we would be developing transportation systems, markets, and restaurants that provide us with fresh and nutritious meals with no regard to profit, and no regard to providing banks or landlords with money.

Do you enjoy cooking or preparing food?

A lot of people enjoy cooking meals, or assisting other people who enjoy cooking, or growing vegetables, or raising farm animals. However, in my ideal "City of Castles", none of the homes would have complete kitchens, and none of the homes would have yards for us to grow food or raise animals. Therefore, it would be impossible for people in my ideal city to cook meals or grow food! Children would not even be able to help their mother or father in the preparation of meals.

If you have looked through my website, then you may realize that one of my pleasant childhood memories is helping my mother make a cranberry-orange bread, but if I had grown up in my ideal city, that would have been impossible because we would not have had a kitchen. So, what is my solution to this dilemma?

The people who currently dominate our world want gigantic, personal homes, and tremendous pampering. They want to live like medieval kings and queens. I think this is a crude, primitive philosophy. I think society would be much more stable and pleasant if we were to redesign it to treat everybody as an equal, and if we encouraged more social activities. We should put an end to the concept of monarchies, nepotism, inheritances, and the pampering of certain people. People in leadership positions should be considered as "employees" who have management jobs. They should not receive any special pampering. They should be under pressure to do their job properly, or find another job. The same is even true of entertainers; why should we treat musicians, artists, or movie producers as gods and goddesses? They should also be just ordinary employees who do a job, and they should be treated just like everybody else.

In regards to cooking, society should support a wide variety of activities for the people who enjoy cooking. For example, as I've mentioned in another file, people who want to operate a restaurant one day a week, or a few days per year, should be allowed to do so. All we have to do is make changes to our economic system so that this becomes practical. The city should support a variety of social organizations so that people who like to cook, but who do not want to operate a restaurant, can get together with other people, and then they could cook for themselves, or for a city festival, or for their families or friends.

Consider the situation with my mother making a cranberry bread with me. Instead of the two of us working alone in our own home in a low quality kitchen, we would arrange to have some time at one of the much more advanced, higher quality, and more beautiful community kitchens that the city provides for these type of social activities. The two of us would then be able to make the cranberry orange bread in a much nicer kitchen. We would have access to better equipment, higher-quality ingredients of all types, and - unless none of the employees or anybody else was at the kitchen - if we had any questions about the food or equipment, we would be able to get assistance. Furthermore, this advanced community kitchen could have automated cleaning equipment, so after we were done making and baking the bread, we could let the robots clean the mess.

These community kitchens would also have pleasant dining rooms, and some would have gardens with picnic areas. Therefore, after we baked the cranberry bread, we would be able to eat it in a much more pleasant environment than our own home. Or, we could take the bread to a city park, or we could invite people to come over to the kitchen and eat with us.

The point I'm trying to make is that in this City of Castles, a mother would be able to bake a cranberry bread with her children, but instead of doing it in her home, she would do it in a community kitchen. Is that a hardship? I don't think so. I think that would be a better situation compared to what mothers are doing right now.

A new, more sociable society will provide us with phenomenal opportunities!

By altering society to encourage social activities, we can provide ourselves with a much greater variety of opportunities compared to the philosophy of providing everybody with their own personal items. This concept applies to people who enjoy making beverages, also, such as apple cider, root beer, wine, or ginger ale. Instead of working alone in their own home with low-quality equipment, they could get together once in a while with restaurants, or with social organizations, and that would provide them with access to a wider variety of higher quality equipment, which in turn would allow them to produce a wider variety of higher quality beverages for either their friends and family, or for groups of people at city festivals or at restaurants.

This concept applies to growing vegetables, also. People who enjoy growing vegetables, fruits, flowers, or water lilies, or who merely want to experiment a bit with gardening, would have more opportunities in my "City of Castles". Instead of each person purchasing their own, low-quality gardening equipment and growing plants in their own yard, the city would provide us with access to community land and lots of high quality community equipment, some of which we are technically capable of creating today, such as computerized irrigation systems. We could develop robotic weeding machines, robotic insect removal systems, and lots of other nice equipment, also. This would allow us to more easily produce fruits and vegetables, and if we produced more than we could eat, it would be easy for us to give the excess to other people, or to the city.

Furthermore, the city would provide people with opportunities to help with the gardening of the city parks, which would enable people to learn about and assist with the production of bonsai trees, water lilies, flowers, or whatever type of plants that their city was growing. These type of opportunities would let us do, learn about, and experiment with gardening when we were in the mood, and we wouldn't have to be concerned about the purchasing, storage, disposal, or maintenance of low-quality equipment.

It's better to share high-quality equipment than own low-quality equipment

Rather than produce lots of low quality rototillers, shovels, and other gardening equipment, it is much better for society to put its resources and engineering talent into developing a smaller number of much more advanced items, such as computer-controlled irrigation systems and robotic weeding devices. The residents of the city wouldn't have to waste any of their time purchasing or maintaining their own personal, low-quality equipment. Instead, they would get involved with the farming - or whatever activities - when they were interested and in the mood, and the city would deal with the equipment, maintenance, and other issues.

Everybody would be more productive because we wouldn't waste any of our time purchasing, maintaining, or disposing of low-quality, personal items. Consider how much time you've already wasted in your life looking through brochures and websites in order to figure out what type of low-quality item to purchase for yourself. All of that time is wasted. And consider how much time you've wasted maintaining your low-quality equipment.

A society would be much more productive if the people were capable of developing and sharing higher-quality equipment. Also, this philosophy encourages people to get out of their house, get together with other people, and do something that benefits all of society. Finally, consider how often you have been irritated by businesses that push products on you with phone calls, e-mail messages, pushy salesmen, and paper mail. The employees would have more job satisfaction if they could do something more useful than try to manipulate us into purchasing items, and we are wasting a lot of resources on all of the sales attempts.

We waste food when we grow it for ourselves

We waste a lot of fresh vegetables and fruit when we promote the philosophy of everybody owning their own land and growing their own food. For example, there are lemons constantly rotting under my tree because it produces too many for me, and many of my neighbors also have lemons, oranges, or other wasted fruit. My mother has an avocado tree that has grown so tall that, even though we constantly chop the top off, there are dozens of avocados every year that are too high for us to reach and end up wasted. Furthermore, that tree produces so many avocados that we cannot eat them all, anyway, and so a lot of them are wasted, even those on lower branches.

Every society is wasting a lot of food and other resources by providing everybody with their own piece of land, their own personal kitchens, their own personal gardening equipment, etc. Furthermore, each person is wasting a lot of their time on their personal equipment. It would be much more efficient if we were to design a society in which we shared the land, farms, fruit trees, restaurants, kitchens, woodworking equipment, stone cutting equipment, microscopes, telescopes, and digital cameras.

Let society be responsible for major material items, also

Digital cameras are an example of an item that we shouldn't purchase because the technology changes so quickly that a few months after you purchase a camera, it is outdated. Also, the batteries are frequently thrown in the trash rather than recycled. It would be more efficient for society to produce a wide variety of cameras and lenses, some simple, some more advanced, and produce enough of them so that people who want a camera will be able to pick up one or more, and have plenty of time to use them. When you got tired of taking photos, then you would give the camera back to the city. Or if you wanted a different model of camera, you would switch it for a different model. If the battery were to become so old that it doesn't hold a charge any longer, you would not throw it in the trash and purchase a new one. Rather, you would give it back to the city, and the city would handle the recycling issues.

If we were to design a society that allows us to share material items and which also supports lots of different social activities, we would have easy access to all sorts of items that we would never normally purchase for ourselves or have access to, such as telescopes, microscopes, CNC lasers, CNC woodworking equipment, and even lots of variations of bicycles. The city would handle the recycling, maintenance, and other issues.

If you wanted to ride a bicycle, you would look through a wide variety of different types of bicycles and just borrow whichever one you wanted to use. Why should we have to purchase, maintain, or even store a bicycle? Why not share these items? Why not let the city handle the maintenance and servicing?

Jamie Oliver, who has produced some television shows about food, has pointed out that a lot of the meat that is sold at fast food restaurants has been processed with ammonia. In this particular episode he tried to frighten some children about the processing of meat into such products as Chicken McNuggets. He told the children that these processed meats are made from the leftover parts of the chicken, such as chicken skin and other "horrible bits", such as tendons, "connective tissue", bone marrow, and bits of bone. However, where is the evidence that "connective tissue", tendons, skin, or bone is bad for us? If ground up, our digestive system might be able to extract many of the minerals and other nutrients from such "horrible bits".

We should not be concerned about whether a food has been "processed", or what the processing method is, or which chemicals have been used in the processing. The two main issues we should focus on are:

1) Is the final food product healthy, dangerous, or worthless?
2) What effect do the businesses that process the food have on society? For example, are they responsible with the processing chemicals, or are they making a mess of the environment? Do they deceive or abuse customers? Are they providing a pleasant environment for their employees? 

If our businesses, governments, scientific labs, and other organizations were under the control of respectable leadership, and if the businesses were processing food in a responsible manner, and if the final result of the processing was a delicious, healthy processed food, then it wouldn't matter whether ammonia was used in the processing. And it wouldn't matter if the final product had "horrible bits" of tendons and bone marrow.

All food is actually "recycled, rotten, garbage"!

Imagine if scientists figure out how to process raw sewage into a tasty food product that is healthy for us, and without harming the environment or the employees who work at the factory. In such a case, we could be eating our own waste products! What would be wrong with that? We already do it! Or, to be more precise, nature has been recycling waste products for millions of years. A tomato plant, for example, extracts chemicals from decayed plants, dead animals, animal urine, etc. Therefore, a "tomato" could be described as "recycled sewage", or "recycled waste products". If scientists figure out how to transfor sewage and garbage into food products, all they would be doing is imitating a "natural" process.

All of the food we eat could be described as "disgusting". All of the meat that we consume is coming from a dead animal. Cheese that is made from milk is full of bacteria and their waste products, so cheese could be described as "decayed milk", or as "bacterial sludge", or "bacterial sewage".

The point I'm trying to make is that we don't need leaders who frighten us with stories of how ammonia is used to process meat, or who try to prevent food from being processed. The people in leadership positions should be analyzing the problems we face, helping us to understand those problems, and working with us to improve society. They should not be exploiting our emotions with fear, praise, or promises.

We don't need videos like this or articles like this or this that frighten us about "pink slime" or "meat glue". And we don't need Jamie Oliver to warn us that 70% of America's beef has been treated with ammonia. For all we know, this ammonia process is extremely beneficial! We should investigate issues, not react with fear or paranoia.

Ryan Seacrest is promoting Jamie Oliver as a food expert, but Oliver, as I mentioned here, believes that commercial pasta is a higher quality food than commercial pizza crust, even though both of them are made from the same highly refined and nutritionally worthless flour! Pasta, as Americans and Europeans make it, is not a "food". As a result, people who eat pasta must also eat some "real" foods or they will suffer from very serious, life-threatening deficiencies.

Why is Ryan Seacrest promoting James Oliver? Are either of them really trying to help us understand food or health? If you are aware of how parasites and criminals are dominating the media and leadership positions, then you might wonder, as I do, if Seacrest is promoting Oliver simply to help his criminal friends push the rest of us aside, thereby allowing criminals to dominate television, health issues, and the making of money.

Our leaders are freaks, not "leaders"

The lack of proper leadership in this world is causing a lot of people to become paranoid of salmonella and E. coli, but meanwhile people are suffering tremendously as a result of automobiles, and the wars in the Middle East that are still going on, and crime and corruption is rampant everywhere. Salmonella is one of our least significant problems!

Our primitive ancestors didn't need leadership in regards to food because they followed "nature". As with animals, they would eat whatever tasted good to them. However, in this modern era, we have access to all sorts of foods, and lots of cooking and food processing technology. We can no longer follow nature; we cannot eat whatever tastes good to us. We need leadership to help us understand which food products are good to eat, and in what quantity, and at what temperatures to cook foods, and for how long. We also need advice on the balance of salts, protein, and other nutrients that we eat.

We must alter society so that scientists can study these issues without concern for profit. Furthermore, we have to change society to provide ourselves with better leadership. Most voters are so incompetent that they routinely elect criminals, parasites, and freaks into government offices, and as a result, instead of helping us to understand health and life, we have government agencies cheating us to an unbelievable extent, such as the FDA, which is still (as of July 2011) suppressing stevia and hemp. And consider that none of our sheriffs or district attorneys are doing anything (at least not publicly) to stop the corruption in our government, businesses, banks, schools, courts, or news organizations. Our legal system is dominated by criminals. An enormous percentage of our leaders should be arrested, not respected or admired.

The scum has risen to the top

If you have looked through my website, then you know that I think that our societies have become dominated by criminals and parasites who achieved their position through crime, intimidation, nepotism, inheritances, marriages, or deception. Most of our top leaders are  intellectually and morally disgusting people, and some of them cannot even pronounce words properly! They have to suppress, kill, and intimidate their competition because they could never achieve their positions of leadership if they were judged by their abilities.

Be suspicious of people who get publicity

It doesn't take much intelligence to realize that our "health experts" are idiots or con artists. Consider their advice that we should drink eight glasses of water a day. How big is a "glass" of water? And why should we all drink the same amount of water when we are different physical sizes and ages, and when some of us sit in front of computers or televisions all day, while others are doing a lot of physical labor in the sun?

Each of us need slightly different amounts of water, salt, fat, and other nutrients. My advice is to ignore the "experts" and experiment with your life. You're going to have to do a lot of trial and error experiments to figure out which diet and lifestyle will keep you in the best mental and physical health. You have to experiment with different foods to figure out which ones you might be allergic to, and whether you feel better with less sugar or more sugar, or less salt or more salt. You must also experiment with your life in order to determine how to get the best sleep at night, and how to reduce fatigue or pain or digestive problems.

For example, do you feel better when you drink beer with your dinner? Or do you feel better if you eat your dinner first, and drink beers one or two hours after you had a chance to digest the dinner? Do you feel better when you mix meat with raw vegetables? Or do you feel better when you separate them by several hours?

If you need medical help, it might be best to look for a doctor who doesn't get publicity. I suspect that the most knowledgeable people are those who are shunned by both the media and by the "leaders" of society, rather than those who appear on television as experts, or who get their books published by major book publishers. My advice is to avoid the people who are promoted as "experts" and look for somebody who shows signs of intelligence.

Don't mindlessly follow authority!

Animals are designed to mindlessly follow the dominant male without questioning how he became dominant. Most humans behave exactly the same; ie, most humans will follow the authorities without ever asking, "Why is this person in a position of authority? Did he earn his position? Should I be following him?"

The authorities also tell us to cook beef to at least 70°C (160°F), and poultry thighs, wings, and legs to 82°C (180°F). How did the authorities arrive at these particular temperatures? I don't think they came from scientific research. I think we are dominated by jerks, parasites, and criminals who should be removed from their positions of authority.

I have been arguing with my mother for years to stop cooking pork when it reaches 60°C (140°F), but she responds over and over that 70°C (160°F) is the minimum for pork. Ideally, we would have honest and talented scientists who help us understand which foods are safe to eat raw, which foods must be cooked, what temperature different foods need to reach, and for how long they should be held at that temperature.

My mother is a typical woman who has been fooled into thinking that women have been liberated from sexism, and that women are as intelligent as men, but my mother is just like women and children everywhere. She is actually very submissive, not very intelligent, and does not want to experiment with her life. She will follow the authorities with no regard to who those authorities are, or how they achieved their position of leadership. She won't listen to anything I tell her because she regards her children as her helpless babies who need her constant supervision. So, she mindlessly overcooks meat, and she mindlessly boils corn to excess.

We should develop products according to their value to society, not according to their profit or sales potential.
Nobody should be trying to manipulate consumers into purchasing products. Ideally, there wouldn't even be such a thing as an "advertising campaign", and we wouldn't worry about appeasing consumers, especially not children! Working for society rather than for sales has some very important benefits, two of which are:

1) We would have more job satisfaction. Everybody - even assembly-line workers - would have more job satisfaction if their efforts were bringing improvements to society rather than merely manipulating consumers into spending money.

2) We would enjoy other people more. We would create a significantly more pleasant society if nobody was trying to push anybody into sales. In today's society, we are frequently irritated by one another as a result of telemarketing campaigns, deceptive advertisements, and pushy salesmen. If we alter our economic system so that nobody is being pushed or manipulated, then we would eliminate this source of irritation of one another. Our current economic system is encouraging us to irritate one another. We should alter society so that we inspire one another; so that we work together for the benefit of all; so that we enjoy one another!

Judge people by their effect on society

A car mechanic should not be judged by how many customers he attracks, or how much money he makes. Rather, he should be judged by how long the cars that he fixes survive without further repairs. A car mechanic should be considered better than another when he spends less time fixing cars, and when his cars go for longer periods of time without repair, and when he needs fewer supplies to fix a car.

A doctor should not be judged by how popular he is, or how many customers he attracts, or how much money he makes. He should be judged by the health and happiness of his patients. A doctor that prescribes fewer pills is better than a doctor who prescribes a lot; a doctor whose patients are happy, honest, and productive is better than a doctor whose patients are miserable, suicidal, and looking for excuses to get drunk.

A scientist should be judged by how he helps us to understand life, not according to how many articles he gets published, how many prizes he wins, how popular he is, or how many diplomas he has.

We should to judge people and organizations according to their effect on society, not their profits, popularity, or image. We should design an economic system in which nobody is trying to sell anything. We should alter society so that each of us is concerned with bringing improvements to society rather than trying to manipulate one another or take advantage of somebody else's misery. By changing our economic system so that the emphasis is shifted from sales to society, we would not irritate one another, and we would all be able to do work that was truly useful for all of society. We would all benefit!

An economic system should prevent the profiting from misery

We should design society so that people are encouraged to have a beneficial effect, rather than what we have right now, which is encouraging people to look for ways to manipulate consumers, take advantage of government laws, and exploit the suffering of other people. Lawyers are a good example of this problem because they are profiting from crime and divorce. In a better society, our legal system would be helping us to understand and reduce such problems.

We shouldn't tolerate the current economic systems in which people can profit from misery, suffering, and disasters. The only jobs available should be those that allow us to contribute to society. Nobody should be able to make a living by profiting from somebody else's misery.

Doctors should be maintenance personnel, not pill prescribers

The people in our "medical community", such as doctors, dentists, and nurses, should should be in the role of a maintenance person who helps us to understand ourselves and maintain our health. Their goal should be to prevent medical problems.

I'm starting to feel the effects of old age, but my father, when he was 70 years old, had more energy than I do at my current age of 55. How is this possible? What is going wrong with me now? Long ago I discovered that I was extremely low on DHEA, and now I'm wondering am I going low on something else.

Ideally, we would be able to visit with dentists, doctors, and other medical personnel to learn about ourselves, and about preventative maintenance. We should be able to routinely visit a medical clinic and get examinations, which would allow us to observe how our body changes as it ages.

Which research projects do you want to support?

Instead of accepting whatever the free enterprise system gives us, we should take control of our future and make decisions about where we want to put our engineering talent, our scientific research, and our manufacturing technology. Do we want to build yachts and mansions for billionaires? Do we want to spend our money on providing Israel with new weapon systems or financial aid? Do we want to spend $100 million to make just one Hollywood movie? Do we want to put money into developing new toys for children, new gambling devices, or new types of cosmetics and jewelry?

Or do we want to put money into developing better cities, greenhouses, transportation systems, and robotic farms?

We should fund research projects that will benefit all of us, such as the development of buildings that are more resistant to cockroaches and rats. We may be able to reduce the problem of rats and cockroaches by replacing some of the wood, paper, and chalk with other materials, or by making changes to the way plumbing and sewage lines travel through the walls, or perhaps we should develop computerized traps or robots to catch rats and cockroaches.

We should also fund research programs to investigate better designs for cities. Certainly we have the intelligence to design cities that are better able to resist extreme weather conditions, and are much more attractive, and which have better transportation systems, and which are much quieter and cleaner.

However, we are not going to bring any improvements to our cities when our scientists are busy wasting their time on the development of magic "weight loss" pills for fat people, and when engineers are wasting their time developing new toys for children, and new types of gambling devices for casinos, and new submarines for Israel.

We should eliminate criminals and parasites, also!

The criminals that dominate our television are often emphasizing the high price of gasoline, and they imply that oil companies are greedy, but the primary parasites in our life are not oil companies. Most of us spend most of our money on banks, insurance companies, landlords, taxes, and lawyers. Crime also takes a lot of our money, but indirectly via security devices, police departments, lawyers, insurance fees, and courts, so we don't notice the cost of crime. We also don't notice how much money is being taken indirectly by greedy and parasitic people in advertising, television, schools, and Hollywood.

If we could get rid of all the criminals and parasites, and if everybody in the world was willing to do useful work for a living, everything would be much less expensive. A college education has become very expensive, for example, but not because teachers are demanding more money. Rather, there are more parasites in the school today than there were years earlier.

Don't let the criminals on television fool you into thinking that the price of gasoline is your major expense in life, or that the oil companies are the only greedy businessmen. Our entire society is dominated by parasites and criminals. We need to make lots of changes to our society so that farmers, scientists, doctors, and other people can concentrate on improving life rather than on providing large amounts of profits to banks, landlords, and other parasites.

It's important for everybody to love life and the people they live with!

Our medical community should be helping us to maintain optimum health. What is the point of living if we do not enjoy ourselves? Also, when we are in good health and happy, we are able to do more work and better quality work. Furthermore, when we live among people who are happy, it's more pleasant for all of us. It is in everybody's best interest to have everybody else in wonderful health and happy. We all suffer when we are surrounded by people who hate life, or who are envious, miserable, depressed, suicidal, or sickly.

It's also miserable to be around people who are lonely. Animals and humans have intense cravings to find a mate and reproduce, and so people who are lonely, especially when they become old, can become frightened, desperate, and very miserable. Lonely people will be tempted to deceive other people into becoming their friend or spouse, which is miserable for all of us.

When we discover that somebody is having trouble fitting into society, we should take a look at his situation to determine if he merely needs some advice or assistance. However, if we come to the conclusion that he doesn't have the mental qualities necessary to truly fit into our society, then we have to remove him.

Nobody benefits when we tolerate misfits

We don't benefit by tolerating misfits, and the misfits don't benefit from it, either. They never truly become members of society. Rather, they become like rats that hide in the darkness and come out when we are asleep. In fact, you can see this happening right now in virtually every city in the world! Late at night the cities become dominated by alcoholics, drug addicts, criminals, and other misfits who suffer from all sorts of mental disorders. Those misfits are not truly members of our society. Many of them are unhappy, angry, bitter, and lonely.

It doesn't do any good to ignore or tolerate misfits. When we simply turn our back on them and let them live among us, they merely "exist" rather than truly become members of society. They need to be sent to their own city, and prevented from reproducing. Many of them will be misfits even in their own city, but they will be less of a misfit, and therefore less miserable, when living among other misfits compared to when they live among us.

This same concept applies to people who cannot find a job in our society. Some of them might be "nice", but if they don't have the abilities to fit into this modern world, they shouldn't be reproducing, and there is no point in even letting them live among us. What is the sense of putting people on welfare programs? They're not going to be very happy, and we're not going to enjoy having them living among us. They need to be sent to their own city and prevented from reproducing. Feeling sorry for them is not going to help them, and letting them reproduce won't help anybody, especially not their children.

America promotes the unrealistic "pursuit of happiness"

People who are unhappy assume that their misery is coming from something that is missing in their life, such as money, friends, fame, sex, or "excitement". As a result, unhappy people are on a "pursuit of happiness". Unfortunately, this is a neurotic philosophy to follow. Nobody can pursue "happiness". You either have happiness, or you don't.

America is based on a false concept; namely, that miserable people will be capable of finding happiness. It certainly is possible that a person who is suffering from bad nutrition or diabetes will find relief through a better diet or insulin injections, but those are physical problems. A person who is miserable because of a physical problem may be able to find relief. However, we do not yet understand or know how to fix mental disorders.

If a person's unhappiness is coming from within his own mind, there is nothing any of us can do to help him. Unhappy people should be removed from society rather than tolerated or pitied. For one reason, none of us enjoy having them around, and for another reason, many of them will resort to crime because they assume that their misery will be relieved through money, sex with children, or fame.

Even if an unhappy person can refrain from criminal activities, that doesn't justify allowing him to live with us. They will never actually be true members of society. They will always be a source of irritation.

If a person is not capable of becoming a responsible member of society that brings pleasure to other people's lives, what is the point of having him living with us? We have to judge people by their effect on society, and we also have to decide what we want the future of the human race to be. We don't yet understand mental disorders, and if they are genetic, and if we allow unhappy people to reproduce, we will create more unhappy people. The ideal situation is for everybody to be in wonderful physical and mental health, and for everybody to be responsible, intelligent, and love life and one another.

People who are unhappy don't want to learn, think, be responsible, or deal with problems. Rather, they are most likely to waste their entire lives on futile and endless quests and experiments to relieve their misery. They're not interested in discussing the world's problems, or helping us make better parks or transportation systems. They're not interested in learning a skill and getting a useful job. They want happiness; they want relief from their internal pains.

When we ignore and tolerate unhappy people, we assume that we are being "nice", but we are not helping them, and we are not helping ourselves. We have to face the fact that nature is very cruel. Every living creature produces a wide variety of defective babies, so creating a pleasant society requires identifying and separating the people who can't fit in properly. They need to be removed, and we must restrict reproduction to the people who are most likely to produce happy, healthy, responsible children.

Every society is tolerating all types of anti-social and neurotic people, and we are all suffering as a result. For example, a lot of the miserable people are wealthy, but the money has not relieved their misery, so some of them resort to crime to become even more wealthy. Some miserable people have lots of sex, but it hasn't relieve their misery, so they are continuing to grab at women and children, and they sometimes rape us.

When we ignore neurotic people, we make life worse for all of us by encouraging crime and strange behavior. We should not tolerate misfits, criminals, antisocial people, or people who are unhappy with life. We must judge everybody according to their effect on society. If they are not productive members of society, they must be removed.

There is no pleasant solution to defective humans

Sterilizing and exiling the unhappy people might seem to be a cruel policy, but those unhappy people are going to suffer regardless of whether they live among us, or whether they are exiled to their own city. However, when we separate them from us, then we create at least a pleasant society for ourselves.

There is no perfect or pleasant solution to this problem. We simply have to make a decision; who is going to suffer? Do we want everybody to suffer? Or do we want to restrict the suffering to the miserable people? The defective people are going to suffer regardless of whether they live among us or whether they live among other defective people, but when we separate them, at least we can be happy.

Furthermore, this policy of exiling the defective people will improve the genetic qualities of humans, thereby reducing the number of miserable, defective people in each generation. Therefore, this policy will slowly improve the human race, wich in turn will slowly reduce the severity of this problem.

If our ancestors had started following this policy centuries ago, then all of us would be in better mental and physical health, and we would all appreciate what our ancestors had started. Likewise, the sooner we begin to control reproduction, the sooner the human race will start to improve. The future generations will be thankful for us, not disgusted.

Why do we need high levels of alcohol in our drinks?

At the beginning of this file I mentioned that we should ask ourselves where the human race is headed in regards to alcoholic beverages. America is dominated by people who have a strong interest in getting intoxicated on a regular basis, and so wine, beer, and other alcoholic beverages are pushed on guests at virtually every wedding, dinner, and other social affair. Furthermore, these people have no interest in drinks with low alcohol levels, so they are not encouraging the development of such drinks.

Every society should contemplate the issue of who among them will dominate their society. No society can please all people. Rather, for every issue that a society faces, decisions must be made on which philosophy will be implemented. The end result is that some people will get what they want with certain issues, and they will have to tolerate other people's desires for other issues. So, who among us is going to dominate the issue of alcoholic beverages? Do we want to create a society in which high alcohol levels are promoted? Do we want people who enjoy getting intoxicated in a leadership role? I don't think that's a good policy.

We should encourage people with alcohol and drug problems to face the fact that they have a problem of some sort. Nobody should need alcohol in order to enjoy life. There is no reason why beers, wines, and other drinks need high levels of alcohol. The alcohol doesn't improve the flavor or aroma in any way.

There is no sense trying to stop people from using or abusing alcohol or other drugs, but we should face the sad reality that these people have a problem. They shouldn't be reproducing, and we should consider exiling those with such serious problems that they have trouble fitting into society.

Our natural tendency is to feel sorry for people with problems, but imagine how nice it would be to live in a society in which people can have free access to alcohol, but they don't abuse it. Imagine living among people that we don't have to worry about raping children, or grabbing at women on crowded trains, or stealing your items. Imagine how nice it would be to live among people who you love and respect rather than fear and worry about.

Better societies require better people

It is very important to fully understand that a more advanced society in which we are sharing the land, kitchens, and other items, would not be practical with the type of crude, dishonest, primitive, psychotic, and lewd people that we are currently living with. In order to live in that more advanced society, we need more advanced people who can handle the situation properly.

The problem with sharing items is that it requires a high quality group of people. We can't share kitchens, farming equipment, or anything else, when we live among thieves, or irresponsible people, or idiots who cannot properly operate the equipment. A more advanced society requires a more advanced group of people. This in turn requires that society control their population. We must control reproduction, and we must set high standards for both leadership and the members of society.

Making a cranberry bread with my mother in a City of Castles would be a lot of fun if we were living among high quality people, but it would be horrible if there were men in the kitchen making lewd remarks to my mother, or trying to grab at her, or who were making lewd remarks to me, or trying to fondle me. On 7 July 2011 a woman described as a "traffic court judge" was arrested for taking a photo of a man using a urinal, and then she tried to bite the finger of a deputy who was investigating the case. It would be awful to share a kitchen, bathroom, airplane, or city park with those type of people.

In order to encourage people to get out of their house and spend time with other people, we must live in a city in which we enjoy the people! We must stop the attitude of feeling sorry for defective, retarded, dishonest, and crude people. We must set higher standards for everybody, especially those in leadership positions.

America has to stop promoting the attitude that there is such a thing as an "Underdog", or a "disadvantaged person", and that we need to feel sorry for the underdogs. An example that I wrote about (here) in 2007, is the potato famine of Ireland.

The "Underdogs" and the "disadvantaged people" who turn to crime, abuse, and begging are not doing so because they are "Underdogs". Each of us chooses the life we want to live. Each of us chooses how we want to treat other people. We have to stop feeling sorry for people who abuse us and start raising standards for people. The "Underdogs" who spend their time crying, looking for pity, begging, stealing, cheating, and lying are doing so because they have chosen to do so. It's not because they are Underdogs. We should not feel sorry for them; rather, we should remove them from our society.

A government that we could trust completely would be incredible!

Many of our government and police officials are dishonest freaks who cannot be trusted. As a result, there are a lot of services that we would be afraid to let our government provide, such as tracking our location. If our government officials knew the location of every citizen, we can be certain that many of them would arrange for burglaries, kidnappings, rapes, and murders.

However, having our location tracked by the city computers could be useful for a lot of reasons. As I mentioned in other files, it would help scientists observe traffic patterns and human behavior, which would help us design cities and social activities. The tracking information would also be useful for people who live in areas with bad weather. If the weather sensors picked up a tornado or a lightning storm, the city's computers could send messages to people in that area to watch out.

Instead of living in fear of dishonest police and government officials, we should clean our society so that we can trust and respect our leaders. There are incredible advantages to living in a society in which we can trust our leaders.

A better world requires better people

A lot of people assume that we can improve our nation in a very simple manner, such as passing a few new laws, or eliminating a few laws, or electing some new government officials, or developing fusion, or finding some large fields of oil. Unfortunately, improving the world is going to require a lot of work, and it is work that we find extremely unpleasant. Specifically, we must control the human population.

Improving life requires studying the problems we face, and experimenting with possible solutions. We can't make a better society when the majority of people want to spend their lives playing with dogs, sitting in front of televisions, getting drunk, and grabbing at children. We need people who are willing to explore and experiment. We must be willing to face the unknown, discuss complex topics, and learn about issues we know nothing about.

This modern era requires a more advanced human; a human who has an interest in society, and a sense of responsibility for that society. This new era requires people who enjoy thinking, working in teams, learning new information, and discussing even complex problems. This new era requires people who are willing to explore the unknown and think thoughts that nobody has thought before. We will not be able to improve life when we allow our world to be dominated by primitive savages who are afraid to taste Mochi.

We need people who enjoy becoming contributing members to society, and who we can turn our back on without fear. We need people that we can leave children around without fear, and people who can use public bathrooms, trains, and other items without abusing, vandalizing, or destroying those items.

Feeling sorry for the crude, ordinary people is not going to help them, and it's not going to help us. In order to enjoy life to its fullest, we have to turn our back on our own relatives and friends, locate and get together with the higher quality people, and create a better life for ourselves.

Judge feminism by its effect on society

The feminist movement is an example of one of the problems we face today. The feminists are not studying our problems or trying to help society. I would describe most of the feminists as bitter, miserable women who are in competition to prove something to men. They are not happy, pleasant women who enjoy life, and who are an inspiration to men, women, and children.

The feminists claim to be "liberating" women from thousands of years of "sexism", but we must determine whether feminism is good or bad according to its actual effect on society. The feminist movement has existed for decades, so we now have lots data to analyze to determine their effect on society. Women have also been voting for many decades, so we can now analyze their effect on leadership.

Life has changed dramatically for men, women, and children as a result of technology, but we must try to separate the changes that are due to technology to those that are due to feminism. How exactly has life improved for men, women, or children as a result of the feminist movement? Are women doing a better job of selecting government officials? Is the feminist movement improving relationships between men and women? Are children having better lives now that their mothers and sisters are liberated from sexism?

As I described in other files, I think the feminist movement is unrealistic, is making life worse for everybody, and needs to be eliminated. I cannot find even one beneficial effect of feminism. Can you?

We need competent voters!

	The majority of people are not emotionally or intellectually suited to this modern era. Most people are incapable of analyzing political candidates and making sensible decisions about who should be elected. Most voters are such nitwits that when presented with candidates they don't like, they simply select one of them, and then complain about him! The voters in every nation ought to be ashamed of themselves for practicing the stupid philosophy of voting for the "lesser evil". Voters should demand high quality leadership rather than tolerate incompetence, criminal behavior, plagiarism, or nepotism.
	One of the most bizarre cases that I'm aware of is Steve Rocco, who was elected to a Board of Education in California. There are some videos that described his strange behavior, his senseless rants, and his refusal to follow the rules, such as allowing his photo to be added to the website. The people who provide reports about Steve Rocco explain it by assuming that the voters didn't know either of the two candidates, so they selected Steve Rocco according to his job description, but the other candidate had a Mexican last name, so I suspect that the mostly Caucasian voters were avoiding the Mexican.

	My advice is to look through some my articles in which I show how most people routinely behave either like stupid animals, who follow whoever happens to be leader, or like children, who follow whoever offers them candy. Katie Piper is an excellent example of this!		Most voters are attracted to the candidates who make them feel good with praise, promises, and submissive behavior.		The organized religions are also an excellent example of how the majority of people will mindlessly follow somebody who makes them feel good, and give them money, and disregard the evidence that their leaders are pedophiles, parasites, idiots, and/or criminals.

If we can identify the small minority of people who are capable of making sensible decisions about leadership, then we could, theoretically, let that smaller group of people analyze the candidates for leadership, make decisions for the rest of the population, and bring dramatic improvements to the world. It's worth a try, isn't it?

Don't be afraid! Find the courage to climb into a covered wagon, and then help bring improvements to the world!

Let's do it, and now!
Before we all die from old age!