One Life

OneLife Index
OneLife
First there was an explosion of unimaginable fury. Then

came the formation of an enormous mechanical universe.
On an insignificant speck of matter, an obscure place of
rare benign conditions, a tiny and fragile fragment of life
was born, an exquisite bit of order that defied chaos. In its
survival struggle it developed the ability to be intelligent,
a force that overcomes all. With this latent power, will life
now have lofty goals, and grow to claim this entire
kingdom as its own? Or will it struggle briefly, intent only
on its own interests, then fade into oblivion?
Introduction
The answer to these questions lies in the culture of man, the goals and
dreams of that portion of life ordained by nature to nurture the rest.
OneLife
What is the basic mechanism of life? What is the relationship between

man and all other life? Is this scientific study a basis for a human
philosophy?
Evolution
and Genetics
What is the mechanism by which all life develops? How did man
develop? What is the future for man? Can man ever be free from the
tyranny of evolution?
Ethics and
Morality
What is proper behavior for the individual human? Can science,

through the study of genetics and evolution, determine human
morality?
Psychology
and Culture
Our science of human behavior determines the course of cultural

development, an engineering task now performed by academics.
Education
and Reform
Our education should insure the stability of our culture by teaching

its detail and only provable knowledge.
Socialism
Socialism stresses the wants and desires of mankind rather than

obligations. Is that what mankind needs?
author
If you or any of your close ones have had a recent death of a loved one and
need to show a deeper form of remembrance, one that will cause them to be
remembered and appreciated by future generations, consider a graveside
memory capsule that contains their entire life written in eBook form, backed
by internet files for future generations. Can contain hundreds of images,
sound, video. Click on the image for more info. Inexpensive to do,
invaluable for future family members.
file:///C|/onelifebook/index.html1/25/2007 4:50:40 PM
Intro to OneLife
Introduction to OneLife
Why is mankind so capable in his technology and so inept in his culture? Why is it the human can build a
space shuttle but can't raise a child in the ghetto?
INTRODUCTION
THE PROBLEM
DISCUSSION
A SOLUTION
PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATIONS
INTRODUCTION
Man has used his intelligence to gain provable knowledge and thereby to create a physical world in which to live.
Unfortunately, while engineer and artisan toiled objectively and produced wondrous things, their social
counterparts (educators, psychologists, sociologists, bureaucrats, etc.) created great imaginative and subjective
systems of destructive cultural dogma all based on archaic and false concepts of man, dooming him to certain
extinction if not corrected.
In designing useful things, the engineer requires the rejection of any "knowledge" which is not provable and
measurable. If something can't be proven to be true, it is not implemented until it can be proven.
We have no requirements for any form of basis in our studies on social man. Our cultural standards and
decisions, the very basis for human life, are based on opinion, conjecture, imagination and hearsay. In fact, we
encourage the bizarre in our cultural studies (diversity and multiculturalism).
We shall require a substantially new

manner of thinking,
if mankind is to survive.
-Einstein
Four and a half million years of history show that both man and woman are by nature (instinct) tribal, selfdisciplined, driven by instinct, competitive, tenacious, vigorous, adventurous, courageous and goal oriented.
Modern history of the past 5,000 years shows that mankind is capable of withstanding great physical hardship
and any stress provided by life. This is a creature that needs guidance and direction, not coddling and sympathy.
file:///C|/onelifebook/intro1.html (1 of 8)1/25/2007 4:50:42 PM
Intro to OneLife
We now seek in our schools (our method of culture maintenance) to destroy those hard-earned human attributes.
We no longer believe in the virtue of excellence (competition). A vigorous person is now called a workaholic. A
tenacious person is stubborn and mean. Courage is considered to be a myth. A goal is a means of seeking
superiority and dominance. Self-discipline is considered biblical dogma, therefore not fit for public schooling.
Tribalism is encouraged through the teaching of multiculturalism. We seek through our education system to
educate instincts, an impossibility, while ignoring the developing human's intellectual need for real knowledge.
We deliberately teach our children baseless dogma, ideology, fantasy and fiction, while boundless real provable
knowledge, which they desperately need in a world suddenly demanding of knowledge, is ignored.
The result is a destructive conflict between the human and its culture, resulting in escape (drugs, promiscuous
sex, alcohol, thrill seeking), rebellion (gangs, crime, drive-by-shootings, teenage pregnancy), racial hate and a
work force that has been taught that productive work is degrading and class enslavement.
Only two centuries ago, we could explain everything about everything, out of
pure reason, and now most of that elaborate and harmonious structure has
come apart before our eyes. We are dumb..... We have discovered how to ask
important questions, and now we really do need, as an urgent matter, some
answers. We now know that we cannot do this any longer by searching our
minds, for there is not enough there to search, nor can we find the truth by
guessing at it or by making up stories for ourselves. We cannot stop where we
are, stuck with today's level of understanding, nor can we go back. I do not see
that we have any real choice in this, for I can see only the one way ahead. We
need science, more and better science, not for its technology, not for leisure, not
even for health and longevity, but for the hope of wisdom which our kind of
culture must acquire for its survival.
. ...................Lewis Thomas, 1979
TOP
THE PROBLEM
Our entire liberal arts education system, from which comes the standards for our culture and the
education of our young in that culture, is now mired in an archaic and erroneous thought pattern: that
knowledge can come from the mind of man based on premises that need no proof and that such knowledge
needs no measured verification. The source of this error lies in the following of philosophers who through
the ages, though gifted, did not have the real and provable knowledge available that we have today. They
taught that truth comes from pure thought and that all humans are capable of pure thought if properly
educated. We have since learned that the human is not inherently wise and is in fact quite prone to error,
and that he is intelligent only when he follows a rigid set of thought requirements and procedures. Since
the education system is intellectually incestuous (it has no external evaluation and it trains its own
replacement) it has developed its own elitist culture which it now insists must be the ideological doctrine of
Intro to OneLife
each student.
And now, this elitist ideology is deeply effecting our science. Biologists, geneticists, evolutionists, linguists, and
psychologists all come from this same intellectual environment. Scientific investigation, especially in the social
sciences, has lost all semblance of objectivity. In many cases the data is taken merely to corroborate a previously
determined ideological conclusion. Conflicting data is ignored or discredited. Often the data is force-fitted to a
desired politically correct result. The consequence is complete 'scientific' support for an erroneous ideology.
Unfortunately, man has become divided into three self-defeating camps of cultural thought. The religious
right is defensively reactionary and will tolerate no reason. The liberal/socialist has become a reactionary
and, even while touting himself as being a champion of 'modern' thought, is militantly defensive of an
outmoded and archaic ideology. While preaching against bigotry and intolerance, he has become guilty of
both. The modern 'moderate' blissfully floats along, content with adding the two extremes and dividing by
two, resulting in error at least as great as either of the others. As a result, man is now bogged down in a
cultural quagmire.
Somewhere, somehow, we must bring our culture determining thought processes away from intuition,
conjecture, imagination and hearsay and start requiring the use of the more demanding, and more
successful, engineering practice of provable premises and logical progression with frequent measured
verification.
TOP
DISCUSSION
Man has the mental skills to develop world wide aviation, space flight, plastics, lasers, digital computers,
television, and the modern automobile. These modern wonders prove that man has the imagination and vision to
see his mechanical needs and the ability to build mechanisms that meet those requirements and bring them into
use. Yet, what about his cultural needs?
Crime is rampant. Children are having children. A huge segment of the population is unable to earn its own way.
People that graduate from our schools cannot read. We abort millions of innocent unborn each year, while
fighting to save the lives of demons on death row. We deliberately insist on segmenting (psychologically
segregating) our population on sexual, racial, and class boundaries, then wonder why they cannot get along. We
have wars and terrorism all over the world. Socialism, and its twin, communism, have been shown to be
catastrophic failures since ancient Greece, yet we insist on driving ourselves headlong down that path. Pop
singers and professional athletes receive the greatest rewards. Our teachers are on the low end of the scale, but
they spend so much more time on indoctrinating the students in elitist ideology than in teaching fact that they
deserve even less. Our politicians are inept, corrupt and without honor. A popular socially degenerate statement
of today, echoing the beliefs of about half of our citizenry about electing a president, is that "Character does not
count." Our justice system is archaic, inbred and impotent. We allow medicine to be monopolized by an elite few
by greatly restricting admissions to our medical schools then have massive complaints about the cost of
Intro to OneLife
medicine. We teach promiscuous sex in our schools with imperfect disease and birth controls then wring our
hands about single parent families and the spread of HIV.
Why does humankind have so many successes in highly technical fields and so many failures in his cultural? The
answer is so simple that if this whole charade was not so pitiful, it would be hysterically funny
Man uses two entirely different thought procedures,
one to solve his mechanical problems
and the other his cultural problems.
Ancient philosopher/scientists described a world constructed from earth, water, air and fire and decreed that pure
knowledge came only from pure reason. As man's knowledge grew, the thinkers diverged into two camps: those
who studied things (the scientists) and those who searched for the deeper meanings of life (the philosophers).
As the scientists progressed in their field, they quickly outgrew the earth-water-air-fire restriction, and as quickly
discarded the notion that any real knowledge could come from thought alone. They continued to recognize the
value of intelligence, imagination, reason and logic, but they had experienced many failures of beautiful thought
when it was put to the test. They began to develop an increasingly skeptical attitude toward all unsubstantiated
thought. That trend continues to this day. Any scientist-engineer of today who voices an idea that can't be traced
with impeccable logic to measurable fact will barely bring a raised eyebrow among his colleagues, no matter
how wonderful it sounds. Today's scientists are still looking for the essence of our material world, and they have
progressed down through the atomic into the subatomic realm in their search. Meanwhile, they have made good
use of each knowledge platform developed during that search
The modern philosophers and social scientists (along with scientists who include ideology as a determining
element in their analyses), are still mired in the pure knowledge comes from pure thought absurdity. Without
knowing the source of human thought and its reason for being, they nevertheless place credence in its product to
the exclusion of measurable fact. They still believe that if a thought sounds good, it is good. They still refuse to
base their thought on physical reality and to constantly test that thought with physical measurement. The biggest
error they make is in attributing abilities to the human brain for which it was never designed. Pure thought cannot
come from a brain tainted with passion and experience. It certainly cannot come from a brain that ceased
developing soon after developing fire and the stone-axe
The human brain is a primitive machine, developed in and as an integral part of a complex and
interacting set of instincts, some of which are now archaic and obsolete (even harmful in some cases). It is
a useful tool under closely controlled operating conditions. It is a real problem the rest of the time and
often downright dangerous.
How can one philosophize about man's ethics, if one does not consider the facts about his condition? How can
his condition be discussed, if he has not been previously defined in terms referenced to measurable fact? Then
comes the biggest question of all: What is man?
Many philosophers, from Socrates to Hegel have tried to answer that question (from the resources of their mind).
The many philosophers in our history have effected our way of thinking, typically much more than they should.
We have misunderstood their relationship with us, and we have been taught that misunderstanding in our
schools. We need to put them in perspective.
Intro to OneLife
Many artists pour their intellect into paint and canvas. Some produce breathtaking masterpieces that thrill us all.
Other artists, called sculptors, do the same with chisel and stone. Others work with the flute and harp. We seek
inspiration from all and get joy from associating with their art. Nevertheless, we do not seek knowledge from
them. By their nature, and deliberately so, their work is separate from reality. We must seek the knowledge by
which we live from more humdrum, but more accurate sources.
Philosophers, another breed of artist, pour the inner beauty of their minds into words and thoughts. We get the
same joy from savoring their thoughts and ideas as we do from the statue, the painting and the melody. Yet we
make the mistake of believing their words to be truth. Unless substantiated by fact, they are a picture of the
philosopher's soul, perhaps even a beautiful picture of a beautiful soul, but no more. We must seek intellectual
joy and inspiration from them. We must not seek knowledge from them. When we listen to their words, we must
also constantly compare those words with reality.
If we can't learn from the philosopher, then how do we answer the question: What is man? We must return to the
basics in our provable knowledge and start from there. We cannot define man until we define life in a measurable
fashion. Once past that hurdle, we can follow life's development down through the ages, proving each step with
logic and measurement, until we reach man. Then, and only then, knowing what he is and what his shortcomings
are, can we start learning his responsibilities and needs.
Mankind develops mechanical things with a straight forward clear-cut set of thinking rules, one that does not
depend on, indeed is highly critical of, the product of mans thought. We allow no such set of rules, indeed we
allow no rules at all, when applying man's ability to think to social concerns. In the cultural world, if it sounds
(feels) good, we swallow the whole idea, hook, line and sinker, especially if the idea is our own.
TOP
A SOLUTION
What is this wonderful and profitable thought scheme used by the mathematicians, physicists, engineers, artisans
and chemists and shunned by the cultural engineers? The pompous ones in the scientific group will say
'scientific method'. The term 'absolute skepticism' is much more descriptive of the process. If an engineer/
scientist cannot prove an idea all the way back to demonstrable and provable truth, and stand ready to do so, he
will not find a supporter anywhere.
All scientists recognize that most of the creative ideas from even the best of their breed, are found worthless.
Only a very few ideas reach practice. Something may sound marvelous, may look marvelous, may even create
marvelous conditions if true, and still be disastrous in effect. Edison, for example, had many hundreds of good
ideas on the light bulb before he found one that worked. Occasionally a greedy scientist will trumpet a new idea
based on false evidence. He is quickly found out and drummed out of the business. The secret of the scientific
method is total skepticism by everyone toward any new idea. Nothing is believed until proven with sound logic
based on measurable fact. Even then, constant vigilance is required for anything that might disprove it. One of
Intro to OneLife
the important early geneticists, Thomas Hunt Morgan, declared, in the early 1900's after a particularly fruitless
siege of inquiry: The investigator must cultivate also a skeptical state of mind toward all hypotheses-especially
his own-and be ready to abandon them the moment the evidence points the other way
The most valuable service done by any scientist/engineer is not his genius in developing new ideas but in his
perseverance in debunking the harebrained ideas of other scientists, and being especially skeptical of his own.
No counterpart of this service exists in modern philosophical-cultural thinking. Contrast this thinking process
with the modern hypothesis by the social engineers that juvenile misbehavior is caused by lack of self-esteem.
This idea is based entirely on current psychological dogma, which in turn not only has no basis in fact, but was
derived through opinion and conjecture (the most dangerous of all thought procedures) from other dogmas that
were also without basis in fact. The truth is, the juvenile who lacks a high order of self-esteem is quite rare. High
self-esteem often leads to arrogance, especially among the young. Teaching them more self-esteem (as opposed
to teaching them how to earn self-esteem through self-discipline and accomplishment) brings more arrogance
toward others. Unearned and unjustified high self-esteem does not do well in adjusting impetuous and selfcentered action. So we see juvenile crime and parenthood climb ever more rapidly as we step up the teaching of
ever more self-esteem. Teaching them a little humbleness would be better, until they earn their stripes.
It would be unthinkable in the mechanical world to re-skin a Boeing 747 with a new plastic material, load it with
600 passengers and wing it off from San Francisco to Hong Kong without running exhaustive tests and analyses
beforehand. Yet the social engineers instituted a federal government subsidy for illegitimate babies with only 'it
feels good' and 'it's the right thing to do' as basis. This experiment was tried out on the entire national population,
and it failed miserably. The frequency of illegitimate babies skyrocketed. The relief from misery for the
individual was dwarfed by the cultural misery (and damage) that the program generated. This is only one
of thousands of such innovations and new ideas instituted without prior measurement, and based on opinion
rather than fact, that are now being evaluated in human misery. Indeed, the more bizarre and irrational the
scheme, especially if it can jerk a tear, the quicker it is tried out.
If we are to succeed in our cultural life as well as we have in our mechanical, we must use the same thought
process. Contrast scientific thinking with that by Marx, the father of all modern liberal/socialist thinking. He had
no basis in provable fact for any of his assertions. Not even one. He was a malcontent bent on destroying his own
culture, and his writings are entirely his opinion. He started with his own beliefs, developed his own thoughts,
and came to his own conclusions. Then there is Freud, the definer of man, whose work (under one name or
another) is a basis for most modern social work. His teachings were figments of his own imagination and if true,
are so by coincidence. To the teachings of Freud and Marx we add a hundred years of naive conjecture by
academics and social workers and now teach it all as fact. It is not. It is baseless dogma and should not be taught
as fact. As long as this mental garbage is taught and believed we will never be able to develop a true
understanding of culture and its needs. Garbage in, garbage out. That explains our cultural failure.
Where do we start in cleaning this mess up? The mechanical people always start with a provable factual
measurable base, then prove their ideas step by step. So where are the basics in the academic world concerning
culture? If we eliminate all dogma, hearsay, conjecture, and personal opinion, nothing is left. Not even one word.
If we could dig our way out from under that pile of refuse, maybe, just maybe, we could find our way to truth.
The way to start would be to label (at least mentally) every book in every library that does not have a scientific
basis as FICTION in big letters across the front, back and spine. Much truth is probably buried in that dogma.
Collective man is usually wise. We should not discard the good along with the bad, but the problem is that
Intro to OneLife
without factual tools, how can the truth be isolated from the garbage?
The mechanical people are still looking for the lowest common denominator of matter. The philosopher/social
engineers' world is lucky, in a sense. The lowest common denominator of life can be readily defined:
The one common thread in all of life is the ability to reproduce.
This is the dividing line between the inanimate and the living. This is the essence that divides the rock from the
tree. By defining this boundary in fact, we can establish a provable path to follow in discovering what life is and
how it works. This path will diverge and lead to all living things and their relationship. Along the way we can
discover what man is and how he fits in the scheme of life. Only then can we know his obligations, deficiencies
and needs.
We need a factual, provable, and measurable base for our cultural studies. First we must state that which is basic
to culture:
Man's concept of man, and his position in the universe,
is basic to all cultural thought.
The first step, then, is to establish that basic concept in fact. We offer a series of texts as a means of discovery.
We struggle to avoid all dogma. Within current scientific knowledge, we will state provable and measurable fact.
We search for the parameters that will define a new worldwide culture, one based on provable knowledge.
TOP
It is common 'knowledge' that science can never determine morality (the most desirable cultural behavioral
norms). Such things are notions from the spiritual or philosophical world, matters of imagination and conjecture
from the very wise. Among the religious they are determined from the words of God, perceived as those written
in their accepted texts. Among the academic elite they are determined from a multitude of self-proclaimed
philosophers, their views (opinions) based primarily on texts by Marx (which they vehemently deny). Both of
these camps are reactionary and militantly intolerant of each other. Both place their faith in dogma. Neither will
listen to reason or fact.
On closer look, however, that first sentence in the above paragraph, is an oxymoron. It says, in effect, that logic
and reason based on provable premises (science) must be discarded in the quest for a livable culture for man in
favor of the lore and chants of the shaman, whether he be religious or socialist. Since there are many of these, all
with divergent opinions about man and his proper behavior, across the breadth of the human species, it is no
wonder that the worldwide human culture is collectively a disaster. If there is need for the application of intellect
and knowledge anywhere in the human experience, it is needed here, for it is here that we determine the future of
Intro to OneLife
mankind.
It can be shown that the human is a definable biological survival mechanism, developed to fit an environment
that can also be measured and defined. Its proper individual behavior (moral action) may be determined from a
study of that dynamic interactive system.
It will be a long and difficult task, made even more so by the entrenched dogmas existing within the culture(s).
To not do so, however, places the human species, perhaps even all of life itself, at great risk.
TOP
OneLife
OneLife
What is the basic mechanism of life? What is the relationship between man and all other life? Can science
provide a basis for a philosophy for the human? The answers to these questions are in the basic elements of
the foundation of all life.
INTRODUCTION
THE MECHANICS
DIRECT CONCLUSIONS
OBSERVATIONS
REFERENCES
READERS' COMMENTS ON ONELIFE
INTRODUCTION
This section contains material that is common scientific belief. Early life left no fossil evidence. Some details are
in dispute. It is given here only as background information and was not considered in the conclusions drawn.
In primeval times the earth was a primitive place. It was sterile, as devoid of life as the moon. Many thousands of
cubic miles of various mixtures of chemicals were in the oceans. Above the earth millions of cubic miles of
atmosphere became enriched with carbon-dioxide and other chemicals spewing from volcanos and from
windstorms over the lifeless continents. Rains washed the pollutants out of the air and into the oceans. Rains also
eroded the continents and formed rivers to wash the silt into the oceans. The oceans became enriched with
chemicals. Billions of chemical reactions were taking place simultaneously all over the globe in this huge pot of
soup. Even with that gargantuan exposure, it took billions of years before the right set of chemicals and the right
physical conditions came together and allowed the creation and survival of the first tiny string of pre-cellular
desoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Life was precarious for this new living creature for many millions of years. It
was tiny and tender, alone in the oceans, only capable of reproducing itself, depending on chance to supply it
with its needs. In its struggle to live in this dangerous environment, it gradually evolved until it finally developed
into a single cell. Now it had a protective container to provide shelter for itself and the nutrients it required for
survival. During this long period of evolution, the coded string of genetic material that developed into the
description of this primitive original cell had increased in length greatly. It started with only the description that
would reproduce its basic self. That small coded strip, perhaps only a few thousand code elements long, is the
essence of life. The essential coding for life was compressed into it. That same essential coding exists somewhere
in all DNA today. By the time the first cell was developed, much additional coding had been added. This
additional coding provided for the formation of the cell wall and the production of its own nutrients and tools
file:///C|/onelifebook/onelife2.html (1 of 12)1/25/2007 4:50:43 PM
OneLife
from raw materials. It added features that enhanced the survival of the life described in that first initial
reproducing string.
TOP
THE MECHANICS
This section is repeated from Evolution for continuity of thought within this topic. It contains material that may
be directly measured or verified in the laboratory.
About 100 billion copies of our DNA are distributed throughout our body. Each copy is alive (it can reproduce
itself) and is identical to every other copy. DNA has many functions within the life-form. Without DNA, we
could not be born. We could not live. We could not grow. Nothing in our body would function. We could not
reproduce. In fact, our body could not form. It controls our growth and development from conception. It
determines our appearance (size, weight, color of eyes, skin texture, etc.). Indirectly it controls all of our bodily
and mental functions (since it details the physical and operating characteristics of all of our components). It even
to some extent controls our length of life. DNA functions in all life-forms in the same way.
No other tissue in our body is alive. None can reproduce without DNA. All tissue other than DNA is built in
response to action taken by DNA and its only purpose is to serve the needs of the DNA. DNA performs functions
necessary for its own survival. It performs functions necessary for our survival. It reproduces itself. It performs
functions that allow us to reproduce. Even in our own reproduction, it is our DNA that is reproducing. DNA
works in the same way in all other life-forms. Of the entire body of any life-form, whether plant or animal, the
parts of its body that bring life to its existence are the DNA in each cell in its body. Life is distributed throughout
the body of every living thing.
DNA has a code that is quite similar in construction to that used in modern digital computers. The code used in
computers is called binary and consists of two numbers: 0 and 1. These numbers are then combined to specify
entities needed by humans: 0001 becomes the binary equivalent of our number 1, 1111 is the binary equivalent
of our number 15, and 01010001 is the binary equivalent of the capital letter Q. Although the computer works in
binary, its output to us is then converted to our language so that we can understand it. DNA encodes with a
slightly more complex system. Unlike the computer that uses 0 and 1, and unlike humans that use a decimal
system 0 through 9, DNA uses a system of four conditions. This system could be symbolized as 0, 1, 2, and 3,
but is not normally done so. Instead, DNA may be visualized as a code made up of four conditions: A, T, C, and
G. These are called bases and they may appear along the length of the DNA in any order. These bases are
complex organic molecules that provide the fundamental genetic building blocks for the description of the
overall organism that the DNA will construct and maintain.
is a molecule of adenine.
is a molecule of cytosine.
is a molecule of guanine.
is a molecule of thymine.
OneLife
The upper and lower red lines indicate the sugar-phosphate "glue" that holds the sequence of bases together.
Between these two "rails" are shown four bases in schematic form. The two vertical base combinations are
called base pairs and are joined with hydrogen bonds. Note that the base pairs are not joined with adjacent pairs
except through the common rails. In physical form, DNA consists of two strings of bases in the form of a ladder
with base pairs forming each rung. The ladder is then twisted to form a helix. Each rung of the ladder is
constructed of only four possible combinations of base pairs. Two of these are shown. The other two are
obtained by inverting those shown. A will only pair with T and C will only pair with G. The four possible
conditions for any rung on the DNA ladder are AT, TA, CG, and GC.
To describe an organism, these bases are coded into a long string of DNA. This DNA coded string must be quite
long. The human description is about 3 billion base pairs long and consists of 24 DNA strings, called
chromosomes. The overall genetic material that describes any organism is called its genome. The genetic
material in each human consists of 2 sets of 23 chromosomes in each of about 10 billion cells in the body.
The top row in the figure below provides a code for making the substances used in the organism. The lower row
of the pair contains the same genetic information, but its code is the reciprocal of the code in the upper row.
Wherever a T appears in the top row, its reciprocal A appears in the lower. AT, CG and GC are the other
possibilities.
DNA strand prior to replication:
OneLife
2 DNA strands after replication:
DNA reproduces by division. The top two rows show a fragment of DNA before it starts to reproduce. When the
DNA replicates, it is immersed in a soup of bases from which it will select the "food" that it needs as it grows.
Other "helper" chemicals are also present. The DNA unzips on one end. The zipper moves down the strand at a
steady pace. Behind the zipper, the two strands are separated. Unattached bases are floating on all sides. One by
one, the proper complementary base is selected and attached to the free-floating half-strand. When the zipper has
completely separated the two halves of the original strand of DNA and the two halves have completely filled
their new complementary halves, the process is complete. The two separate but identical DNA strands result.
DNA coding resembles computer binary coding in another way. Early personal computers used a series of binary
numbers that were eight positions long, such as 11001110 or 00011101. This was termed an eight bit wide word.
An eight bit word can encode all of the letters of the alphabet, for use in a word processor, for example, or it can
provide numbers from 0 to 255 for use in computation. Modern personal computers are much more versatile,
using word lengths of 32 or even 64 bits in length. Another common coding system is used in our written
language. It uses 26 possible conditions (a...z) and variable word lengths to provide a written symbol (code) for
every spoken word. DNA uses a much simpler system, which is only three positions wide, called codons. ATC,
TCG, and TTT would be examples of individual codons. Since a word length has three possible positions and
four possible conditions in each position, sixty-four possible combinations are possible. Not all these
combinations (codons) provide unique functions. DNA codons specify the construction of 20 possible amino
acids. These amino acids may be further combined to form more than 100,000 substances to be used in cell
construction and maintenance (in turn building and maintaining the host organism).
TOP
DIRECT CONCLUSIONS
This section contains conclusions derived from the mechanical DNA replication process:
CONCLUSION 1:
There is no death in the DNA replication process.
Argument:
All of the material in the original strand of DNA becomes a part of the resulting two strands.
There is no residue. There is no dead tissue. There was no death.
OneLife
.
CONCLUSION 2:
There is no new life created during the replication process.
Argument:
The information in the coding in each side of the original strand of DNA is identical
(although one side is the reciprocal of the other, the information content is identical). One of
the sides, containing its complete description of the organism, went into one of the resulting
DNA strands, while the other side went into and became a part of the other. There was no
new life created. The life in each new strand came directly from the original. The original
merely grew into two.
.
CONCLUSION 3:
All living DNA today has been alive since the first life.
Argument:
To replicate, the DNA must be alive. When it replicates, it passes its life physically and
directly to its offspring. All living things today are alive by virtue of the DNA living in each
cell in their bodies.
The organism may be new, but that which gives the organism life is very old. What is the
age? It depends on what stage of development is considered the dividing line. Many
chemicals can replicate. RNA, which is essentially one side of a DNA string, can, although
most must depend on cells that contain DNA for aid in their replication. Many feel that life
started with the single cell. It is only there that the DNA became a part of a contained system.
It is generally believed that pre-cellular life began perhaps 4 billion years ago and that the
first functional cell appeared about 3 billion years ago. Happy 10 digit birthday!
DNA is immortal in the sense that it has no natural death.
.
CONCLUSION 4:
All of the cells in the human body contain the same life.
OneLife
Argument:
When a human child is conceived, it consists of a single cell. In that cell are two sets of 23
chromosomes. One set came from the father, one from the mother. The set that came from
the mother contains an X chromosome. The set that came from the father may also contain an
X chromosome, in which case the new child will be a female. The set from the father may
contain a Y chromosome in the place of the X, in which case the new child will be male.
The DNA will immediately start dividing. When the cell contains four sets of chromosomes,
instead of its original two, the cell itself will divide. As the DNA grows, so grows the child.
The cells multiply in the series 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, etc. until the total cell count approaches 10
billion at maturity. We have seen in conclusion 2 that as the DNA replicates, it carries the
actual life forward.
.
CONCLUSION 5:
There is only one life and it is shared by all living things.
Argument:
From conclusions 1 and 2, if there is neither death nor creation of life during DNA
replication, then the life after the replication must be the same life as that which existed
before. From conclusion 3, all life since the first life has been alive since then. All modern life
is the same age. Life has been growing since the beginning.
Life, therefore, is collective and it began millions of years ago (the life in our bodies is that
old). We are vessels that carry a small portion of that life for a short time. Death for the
individual is not an end to life, since life continues to exist in all other forms of life, and will
continue to do so as long as there is life.
.
CONCLUSION 6:
A philosophy that satisfies the needs of the human must also include all other life.
Argument:
In its strictest sense, a human is alive only by virtue of the DNA in its body. It is the DNA
which lives and which gives all of the forms of life their structure. In the structure of life, the
human is only one element in a multitude. To determine the goals, aspirations and moral
behavior for the human, therefore, the human's inclusion within and its interface with all other
life must be considered.
OneLife
CONCLUSION 7:
Mutations do not alter the fact that the same life is carried forward when DNA
replicates, even though the form of the resulting organism has changed.
Argument:
When DNA replicates, the usual case is that the resulting pair are clones of the original and it
has been shown that the new life is the same life as the original. Mutations, accidents which
change the DNA pattern, happen. In these mutations the DNA may become shorter, through
the loss of a portion of the original pattern; longer, through the addition of new material into
the string; or rearranged so that the order within the string has been changed.
If the DNA string has been made longer, and it still lives, inanimate (non-living) material has
been inserted into the string. Since the original string consisted of both inanimate material and
life, and the new string consists of inanimate material and life, and there is no magic in the
process (nothing has been created, it is merely a physical process) then the new life is the
same life as the old.
If the DNA string has been made shorter through the omission of material in the replication,
and it still lives, the new string consists of inanimate matter and life. Since there is no magic
in the process (nothing has been created, it is merely a physical process) then the new life is
the same life as the old.
If the elements within a DNA string have been rearranged during replication so that the new
DNA string is different, and it still lives, the new string still consists of inanimate matter and
life. Since there is no magic in the process (nothing has been created, it is merely a physical
process) then the new life is the same life as the old.
.
CONCLUSION 8:
If a man-made machine forms a new string of DNA which is a direct copy of an existing
living form, and it lives (is able to reproduce and survive), it is the same life that dwells
within this new string as in the DNA which has been copied.
Argument:
When DNA replicates, it makes use of inanimate (non-living) biological chemicals in the
process. Some of these non-living chemicals enter into and become a part of the two new
DNA strings. Others perform replication services and processes. In the case of natural
replication, the DNA is unzipped and inanimate material is used in the replication process to
fill in the missing sides of the two unzipped half-strings. In this process, each unzipped halfstring becomes a memory string containing the life pattern. It by itself is not alive (it cannot
reproduce and survive), it is merely a code for life being used in the process of continuing life.
If the information concerning the base-pair sequence of a living organism should be placed in
OneLife
computer memory, it is merely a code for life but it is not living. In this form it is an
intellectual concept, a real description of a living organism. If a machine should be devised
that could guide the formation of a DNA string from inanimate biological matter in response
to this code in memory, the new DNA string could live (both reproduce and survive) as well
as the former. The machine built by man in this case is not magical (it performs a mechanical
process), therefore, this new life is the same life as the former.
Life then is composed of two elements, each of which can exist separately from the other. The
real elements are certain biological chemical compounds. The intellectual (conceptual)
element is a pattern of these compounds. All existing life is the same life by virtue of its being
directly reproduced from the original life. Future life will still be the same life, although some
of it may be produced directly from intellectual concepts. In the latter case it required prior
life, an organism strain developed by life which contained an intellectual component, to
devise the process. Life developed through evolution into a life-form which could transfer
itself as a concept (a packet of real data).
TOP
OBSERVATIONS
Tradition is very strong in human thinking. A lifetime of learning that life consists of being born, having
offspring and then dying produces a mind set. Relationships within families such as sister, mother, father, etc. are
fundamental in our thinking. A human, we believe, is an individual, another human is a separate life. Conclusion
5 presents an entirely different story. It says that all life in all living things is the same life. This violates all
previous teachings about life. One must understand that the life forms produced by life are conceptual and that it
is life itself which permeates all living things, and all life is one and the same. DNA does not bear young, it
grows into multiple copies. DNA is not born (created), it comes directly from the DNA before. DNA does not die
unless something in its environment kills it. It is immortal except for accidental death. The living characteristics
of life (DNA) are different from those of the organisms that it specifies.
This does not eliminate the very human need to separate and categorize when such is required for performing a
task. Categorization is often necessary. The human consists of the male and female. The species consists of three
races. The dog is one species, the cat another. What it does say is that life (DNA, the life force) is universal in all
living things and that the essence of life, that which gives all things life, is the same life in all living things.
Survival then becomes a matter of the survival of life, not necessarily a particular species which by accident it
formed as the result of its mindless interaction with the environment.
This then is fact: the human is a variation in life form produced by life (DNA).
OneLife
Fact does not produce philosophy. It can only guide. Still, surely, a philosophy based on fact is more apt to be
useful than one based on opinion, conjecture and fantasy
This text advances one thought, life is extremely close knit (so close in fact that it is one). Any philosophy we
express must now be based on that.
No evidence is found (so far) that life has been endowed by the universe with any special purpose or value. It is
merely a fact, a mechanical thing that follows the same rules as the rock. Life developed as the result of ways
that compounds may be constructed, and how they fit together. If life has purpose or value, it must be assigned
after the fact. We are here, now what?
If we wish to do so, we can look at this whole charade as nonsense, a cruel and stupid joke. If we adopt that
attitude as the basis for our cultural philosophy, we will not be around long. If no one cares, the ending will be
swift, and we would have wasted four billion years of pain and suffering.
Or we can look at it another way. We can define our own value and purpose, then seek to fulfill them. We can
adopt the universe as our domain and set idealistic goals for ourselves, then strive to grow into our expectations.
No one else sets our destiny for us. It is our responsibility. We write our own story. And we can make it as long
and as pretty as we wish. Or end it quickly.
TOP
A description of the detail of a culture is a statement of the individual behaviors of the members in a group. It
includes all that they do, both moral and immoral. The details of a culture may be ascertained by observation, a
matter for sociology and psychology. But what forms a culture? Why do they differ so significantly? It develops
from a group concept.
The human's concept of the human, and its position in the universe, is basic to all cultural thought.
The direction of a culture, its goals and aspirations, are established by its philosophy. The judgement of the
culture, and of each behavioral element within that culture, then, is a matter of and for philosophy. A proper
philosophy, therefore, is basic and necessary for the determination of a proper culture for the human. There are
inherent restrictions on the form of that philosophy. A reasonable philosophy must fit the species. It can't be
formed without full functional knowledge of that species. None of the ancients had access to that knowledge
Modern philosophers ignore it. That knowledge must become a part of the philosophy.
Human philosophies have always been based on a particular concept of the human. Each philosopher defines the
human then forms a philosophy for the human that fits with that definition. That definition has always been
formed by considering the basic unit of human life as being the whole human. Therein lies the error. The facts of
the human are far more complex. It is a philosophy of all life, which is needed, not of the human alone. That
OneLife
philosophy of life would then contain the required philosophy for the human and inherently provide the proper
relationship between the human and all other life.
It is not that the human needs to take care of all other life as a moral obligation, though that is certainly
true, it is that the human is a small part of life, but one which possesses a characteristic (intelligence)
which is valuable to the survival and well being of all life. It was life which developed that intelligence, not
the human, therefore its service is for all life, not merely the human. The human is, in that sense, a servant
to life, a caretaker in the service of life, the good shepherd for all of life.
Watson and Crick announced the double helix construction of DNA in 1953. It changed the study of living
organisms in an irrevocable manner. Biologists were the first hit. Their viewpoint was considerably altered. Until
that announcement, organisms were studied on the basis of the organisms themselves. After that announcement,
all life became studied on a molecular basis. This is causing (or should be causing) a restructuring of thought in
every life science.
The genome project started the molecular study of the human. A torrent of information has resulted, yet it is only
a hint of things to come. The eventual redesign of the human by the human is inevitable. And that will not end
the progression. The evolution of the human will not end when the human controls evolution. A progression of
entirely new species, one after the other, is ensured. Stephen Hawkings recently created a stir among the
righteous academic elite when he made the statement that the human (its DNA) needed some competent
engineering, which it would surely get someday in the future. One need look only at his physical condition to see
that such engineering is a requirement, and that objections to such a course are hardly righteous. Once the
survival of the human is insured, then attention can be turned to the problems and frailties of all other life. A
garden of Eden is possible, if our philosophy sets that as a goal.
In the same manner that life was studied on the basis of organisms, human study and the philosophy of that study
has been on the basis of the human. The error is the same. A problem can't be solved from its middle. A
philosophy, likewise, must begin with the beginning, and that is the dividing line between the animate and the
inanimate, some four billion years before the beginning of man. A philosophy of life must be in perfect harmony
with life - from the beginning of life. Philosophy, as with all of the other studies of the human species, must start
at the molecular level. And it must be a dynamic philosophy, one which can evolve as the human evolves.
TOP
REFERENCES:
For a detailed reference, see Molecular Biology of The Cell by Alberts, Bray, Lewis, Raff, Roberts, and Watson
- Garland Publishing, 717 Fifth Avenue, New York NY 10022 - ISBN 0-8153-1619-4
TOP
OneLife
Readers' Questions on OneLife

I am repulsed by the idea that the human is no more than a vessel for DNA and exists only for its keeping.
Sorry. I didn't invent this. If it was up to me, I would've invented a far more romantic story. Man, in his search
for truth in his own mind, has been inventing such stories since the beginning. There are thousands of them
around. Pick one of those if you must. This is the truth, however, and it's time we faced the truth and made the
best of it.
The fact that mankind has humble beginnings is not reason to despair. In the human world we have many
examples of individuals climbing from the ghetto to great heights. All mankind can do the same. And those
heights available to mankind have no limits.
The occurrence of life at the beginning may be described in scientific terms as an occurrence with a probability
approaching zero. A miracle defined in scientific terms is an occurrence with a probability of zero. Only a nitpicker could find a significant difference between the two. So you religious people may look at that beginning as
a miracle, the creation of life by God. Then evolution becomes the process by which He created all life. DNA
becomes His arm reaching down through all of the life He created. And perhaps our final test to enter His
kingdom (mankind's Utopia, whatever that turns out to be) is to use the intelligence that His process gave us in
the interest of all His creation. If so, the modern elitest ideological concept of instant self-gratification isn't
exactly what He had in mind.
It doesn't fit the scientific version either.
How can you call something that can only reproduce itself alive? Surely life is more than that.
We were looking for the lowest common denominator of life. If a substance is able to reproduce, it has a property
that inanimate matter does not have. Any other characteristic but without the ability to reproduce still describes
inanimate matter.
What about RNA?

Determining the exact point in the development of life for a basis is a problem. There are even chemicals that act
as if they are reproducing. Should we have used RNA instead of DNA? I don't know. If anyone can give me a
reason to do so, I'll give it some thought. Actually, all modern life came from a single cell. Our argument would
work as well at that level of development.
OneLife
Why do you say life came from a single source? Why couldn't there have been many?
In scientific work, if there are two possibilities, one simple and the other complex, it is always reasonable to
accept the simpler one as a first approximation. The reason is that no matter which one you accept, you must then
devote your energy to disproving it. The fact that you accepted a possibility is not sufficient. Only after it can't be
disproved are you safe in relying on your selection. It is far easier to try to disprove the simpler choice because of
its lack of complexity. If you succeed in proving that there was only one line, you have proved yourself correct.
If you find evidence to the contrary, you have proved the complex case. In trying to disprove the complex
assumption, you must first disprove its complexity, a much harder job.
Genetic studies of DNA sequences from very diverse forms of life have shown remarkable similarity. The chance
that many different origins of life would have random mutations that are so alike approaches zero. Until we can
find a DNA string that shows a different history, we'll stick with the onelife theory.
TOP
Evolution Index
Out of chaos emerged a tiny shred of life. From that came

all living creatures. One of those is man.
Genetics and
Evolution
To build a culture which satisfies the needs of man, man

must first be understood.
To understand man, it is necessary to comprehend his
origin, the process by which he developed, and the
environment in which he developed.
This series is not written by an academic in the field of genetics and evolution. It is instead
written by a trained and experienced electromechanical engineer after researching the
literature. The viewpoint then is one of mechanisms and processes, based on provable
premises. All effort has been made to minimize conjecture, opinion, hearsay and ideology.
Evolution
Once life was created, the mechanism of evolution then

developed all other life forms. This creator of man now
becomes a deadly problem we must solve.
Early
Evolution
The major development by evolution was the cell, the first

self-contained life. Complex life then developed as
cooperative groups of cells.
Human
Evolution
The journey from ramidus to sapien wasn't easy. Evolution

works best on misery and death. When a species becomes
successful, evolution then provides species degeneration.
Darwin vs Intelligent
Design
Darwin's theory is perceived by many as a threat to all

religious beliefs, a theory that the religious believe could
result in a collapse of human culture.
The Human
Brain
The differences in the behavior between man and beast lie in

the function of their brains. From this organ comes the good
and bad we call human.
The Digital
Man
When man is quantified, and he soon will be, there will be a

wailing and gnashing of teeth . The first step is placing man
in a category that lends itself to measurement.
The Soul
of Man
There are two central beliefs by all mankind which

transcend cultural differences: 1. Life is more than its
chemicals, and 2. Man is more than his mechanism.
file:///C|/onelifebook/evolve/index.html (1 of 2)1/25/2007 4:50:43 PM
Evolution Index
Degeneration
of Man
Evolution was not kind in its way of creating us. Now that
we have conquered, all we have accomplished is arranging
for our own extinction.
file:///C|/onelifebook/evolve/index.html (2 of 2)1/25/2007 4:50:43 PM
Ethics Index
A study of the OneLife theory reveals the relationship between the

individual human and all other life.
Human Ethics
and Morality
A study of genetics reveals the method by which the structure of the

human is determined.
A study of the evolution process reveals the method and sequence of the
development of the human.
From all these we may learn what life is, what the human is, the
relationship between the two, and the behavioral responsibilities of the
individual human.
The knowledge forming the basis for 'Human Ethics and Morality' is contained in the 'Evolution and
Genetics' section under the main index. If you are not familiar with the information in that section, you
must at least have a basic philosophical understanding of evolution before evaluating the material
contained in this section. A brief summary is available here.
Fact, Knowledge
and Theory
Words are symbols that represent intellectual concepts. Communication

depends on a reciprocal understanding and agreement on the
relationships between words and concepts.
A Philosophy
Every human is a philosopher. His behavior reflects his concept of his

relationship with all other life. This philosophy must be based on real
knowledge.
A Basis for
Morality
Moral human behavior optimizes the survival and nourishment of the

human species. Any other behavior is harmful (immoral, unethical).
The Ethics of
Cultural Murder
Any cultural practice that involves the murder of human beings will
contribute a negative influence on the survival of the human species.
Sex
The dominant cultural instinct is the drive for sex. To insure a benign
and intellectual culture, the human is required to intellectually control all
of its instincts.
Eugenics
Once a hated political weapon, this new branch of technology now stands
as our only hope against a collapsing society and species extinction.
file:///C|/onelifebook/ethics/index.html1/25/2007 4:50:44 PM
Psychology Index
Psychology is the science of behavior. It determines, for a given

species, the mean and spread of expected individual reaction
under a given set of conditions.
Psychology
and Culture
The human is an instinctively driven social animal with the

capability of memory, imagination and intelligence.
The environment which effects the actions of the individual
human includes his physical environment, his physical and
mental genetic structure, his accumulated knowledge, the preestablished community behavioral norms, the over governance
and economic structure, and the individual's own notion of
himself and his position in the universe.
The major contaminants in the science of psychology are ideology, spirituality, philosophy,
politics, dogma, fiction, activism and intellectual elitist tribalism(PC).
Introduction
The behavioral instincts of man have always been extremely

complex, often contradictory. A study of his many
eccentricities is necessary.
Psychology and
Evolution
Psychology has always minimized the effects of genetics and

evolution on the behavior of man. What is the relationship
between evolution and psychology?
History of Culture
Modern cultures grew from ancient tribal customs. Early man

developed instincts which enhanced tribal survival.
Government and
Culture
Time was when the tribal culture included its management.

When tribal size grew into the millions, things changed.
An Epitaph for the

Western Culture
It built a strong and powerful nation from a small group of

pioneers in only 200 years. Now it is mortally wounded and
slowly fading away.
The Gambel's Quail
Can a birdbrain give man a lesson in disciplined behavior?

Here's a change of pace in the evaluation of culture. You be the
judge.
This series is not written by an academic in the field of psychology. It is instead written by a
trained and experienced engineer, one versed in computer architecture and control systems. The
viewpoint is one of mechanisms and processes, based on research covering current knowledge of
the human neural system and its evolution.
file:///C|/onelifebook/psy/index.html (1 of 2)1/25/2007 4:50:44 PM
Psychology Index
file:///C|/onelifebook/psy/index.html (2 of 2)1/25/2007 4:50:44 PM
Education Index
How can we hope to move from many cultures, all based on

instinct and dogma, to one central rational culture based on
knowledge, when no modern culture has the knowledge,
understanding or discipline to make that change?
Education
and Reform
The answer is to provide an unbiased education system which is

politically, socially, and culturally neutral. One that teaches only
provable knowledge.
The product of this new system of education will succeed
resoundingly in any field of endeavor. Many will choose to be
teachers of fact. Newer, more rational, and less bigoted teachers
will become available.
A new and more rational culture will then evolve.
There is a profound dread

that something has gone terribly wrong with our schools.
John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
Introduction
Our schools entertain the students, build their egos and

ideologically prepare them for a socialist world. Neither their
knowledge nor their behavior, on graduation, fits the real world.
Dynamics
What perverse process is it that has changed our education

system from being a teacher of knowledge to becoming a
juggernaut with the desire, will and power to completely
restructure our society?
Whole Language
Modern education dogma has no factual basis. It uses archaic

beliefs instead. Logical development from such dogma does
strange things, such as telling a runner he can run faster
backwards.
The Drug Connection
Ever wonder how our kids find out about all this drug stuff?
Would you believe our schools not only educate our children
about mind altering drugs, they often demand that they use
them? At your cost?
file:///C|/onelifebook/edu/index.html (1 of 2)1/25/2007 4:50:44 PM
Education Index
The Curriculum
Students should know enough about the universe they live in,
and their position in it, to be comfortable and confident as they
enter the modern high tech world. Art, music, sports and
philosophy later.
file:///C|/onelifebook/edu/index.html (2 of 2)1/25/2007 4:50:44 PM
Socialism Index
Socialism
and Culture
A culture includes the behavioral requirements of the overlying

government. In the free-enterprise system, the behavioral rules
of the government should extend only into criminal and civil
action. All other cultural elements are then fluid to fit the needs
of the species. In the case of socialism, the government is the
culture, since its rules include all behavior. But, man is not
uniform in his requirements for happiness and well-being.
Although he needs a certain amount of imposed discipline, he
must also have the freedom to pursue his own goals and dreams.
Man developed as a tribal-warrior-hunter over a two million year period. By nature (instinct)
mankind is goal seeking, family oriented, honorable, dynamic, tenacious, brave and industrious. But
man dreams of the goals, even while working toward them, and tends to detest the travail associated
with attaining them, not realizing that it is the struggle which hones the human and those traits will
atrophy if not diligently exercised. This healthy inner conflict, which makes mankind great, also
provides a weak spot, an open invitation for socialist seduction.
Principles of Socialism
Free enterprise emphasizes man's productivity. Such nations are

wealthy. In making man dependent, Marxism (socialism/
liberalism) emphasizes man's wants. Such nations are destitute
Socialism in Education
Our socialist education system denies that it is a part of the

socialist movement. You won't find any of them who will admit
this history of how they got that way.
Socialism and
Medicine
Free-enterprise and socialism each have their deficiencies, but

placing a large segment of a free enterprise system under
socialism is a marriage made in hell.
file:///C|/onelifebook/social/index.html1/25/2007 4:50:45 PM
Author of OneLife
John Stevenson, onelife@onelife.com

Electronic Engineer (Senior Engineer, Hughes),
Engineering Services Manager (Motorola),
Director of Quality Control (Collins),
Meteorologist (Air Force, Chief Warrant Officer
- wartime service),
Teacher (electronics, DeVry Institute),
Inventor (patents in plastics molding, internal
combustion engines, digital music synthesis),
Programmer (VB6, some C++, x86 assembly, SX
assembly),
Student of social behavior (culture) based on real
and provable knowledge.
file:///C|/onelifebook/author.htm1/25/2007 4:50:45 PM
Evolution, the Process
Evolution
Evolution is known fact. It can be demonstrated. No reasonable person can dispute it. Evolution is by far the
most important natural process to the human. His very thought and structure came from this process. No
human can properly assess his own position in the universe without knowledge of the evolutionary process.
Evolution developed the modern human species, and so has a bright side. Evolution also has a dark side. The
future of the species depends on knowledge about evolution becoming widespread.
INTRODUCTION
DNA AND REPLICATION
THE GENOME IS A DIGITAL PROGRAM
THE EVOLUTION PROCESS
CONCLUSIONS
DISCUSSION
READER'S COMMENTS
INTRODUCTION
There are three forces in opposition to real knowledge about evolution:
1. Religious rejection - A large part of the public view certain knowledge as being anti-God. The
study of evolution is an example. These reject the information contained in this text, rather than
embrace real knowledge about the real world. They prefer dogma over fact and faith over reason
and logic.
This group not only practices evangelism to spread their beliefs, they are militant in their support
of those beliefs. As a result, they not only deny provable and measurable fact in favor of dogma,
they will also deny any philosophy derived therefrom, even though it may parallel their own.
2. Academic protection of the campus elitist ideology - the academic professionals truncate and
distort scientific knowledge in order to further political aims toward an egalitarian (socialist)
society. They call it 'humanizing' science. This is intellectual hypocrisy at its worst. Politically
correct knowledge is the result.
This group is not only far more righteous than the religious in support of their dogma, it is also
more militant in defending it. Whereas the religious will seek conversion within the free will of the
convert, socialist ideologues will use any measure to force their dogma on the public.
3. Public apathy - The conflict between the forces described above leaves a majority of the public
confused. As a result, a large percentage does not care. The future of mankind does not concern
them. These seek instant self-gratification. As long as they can satisfy their own drives, they are
content.
These need factual education.
file:///C|/onelifebook/evolve/evolution.html (1 of 16)1/25/2007 4:50:47 PM
Evolution as a process is composed of two parts:

1. An organism reproducing mechanism that provides variable organisms. Changes to the
organism are largely random and effect future generations. They are made without regard to
consequences to the organism.
2. A changing environment which screens organism changes. The environment provides stress on
the variable organisms that selectively allows, through competition, certain changes to become
dominant and certain others to be eliminated, without consideration for the future of the mechanism.
That same process provides mechanism (organism) disintegration if a strong screening environment
is not present. Evolution is a two-way process which does not always work to the long term
advantage of the organism and in fact often becomes quite deadly to a given species and thereby
eradicates it.
The evolutionary process is bidirectional in its effect. It may, depending on the environment, either improve a
given characteristic or decay it. Since the first step in the process is largely random and most organisms are quite
complex, almost all of the variations are harmful. A characteristic of a species advances if the environment is
harsh, since most harmful variations to that characteristic will be eliminated through death and suffering at a
rapid rate, leaving only the inconsequential and helpful changes in the lineage. If the environment is benign with
respect to the capability of the species then the harmful changes are not eliminated and the species will
degenerate to a point of balance with the environment.
TOP
DNA and Replication

About 100 billion copies of our DNA are distributed throughout our body. Each copy is alive (it can reproduce
itself) and is identical to every other copy. DNA has many functions within the life-form. Without DNA, we
could not be born. We could not live. We could not grow. Nothing in our body would function. We could not
reproduce. In fact, our body could not form. It controls our growth and development from conception. It
determines our appearance (size, weight, color of eyes, skin texture, etc.). Indirectly it controls all of our bodily
and mental functions (since it details the physical and operating characteristics of all of our components). It even
to some extent controls our length of life. DNA functions in all life-forms in the same way.
No other tissue in our body is alive. None can reproduce without DNA. All tissue other than DNA is built in
response to action taken by DNA and its only purpose is to serve the needs of the DNA. DNA performs functions
necessary for its own survival. It performs functions necessary for our survival. It reproduces itself. It performs
functions that allow us to reproduce. Even in our own reproduction, it is our DNA that is reproducing. DNA
works in the same way in all other life-forms. Of the entire body of any life-form, whether plant or animal, the
parts of its body that bring life to its existence are the DNA in each cell in its body. Life is distributed throughout
the body of every living thing.
DNA has a code that is quite similar in construction to that used in modern digital computers. The code used in
computers is called binary and consists of two numbers: 0 and 1. These numbers are then combined to specify
entities needed by humans: 0001 becomes the binary equivalent of our number 1, 1111 is the binary equivalent
of our number 15, and 01010001 is the binary equivalent of the capital letter Q. Although the computer works in
binary, its output to us is then converted to our language so that we can understand it. DNA encodes with a
slightly more complex system. Unlike the computer that uses 0 and 1, and unlike humans that use a decimal
system 0 through 9, DNA uses a system of four conditions. This system could be symbolized as 0, 1, 2, and 3,
but is not normally done so. Instead, DNA may be visualized as a code made up of four conditions: A, T, C, and
G. These are called bases and they may appear along the length of the DNA in any order. These bases are
complex organic molecules that provide the fundamental genetic building blocks for the description of the
overall organism that the DNA will construct and maintain.
is a molecule of adenine.
is a molecule of cytosine.
is a molecule of guanine.
is a molecule of thymine.
The upper and lower red lines indicate the sugar-phosphate "glue" that holds the sequence of bases together.
Between these two "rails" are shown four bases in schematic form. The two vertical base combinations are
called base pairs and are joined with hydrogen bonds. Note that the base pairs are not joined with adjacent pairs
except through the common rails. In physical form, DNA consists of two strings of bases in the form of a ladder
with base pairs forming each rung. The ladder is then twisted to form a helix. Each rung of the ladder is
constructed of only four possible combinations of base pairs. Two of these are shown. The other two are
obtained by inverting those shown. A will only pair with T and C will only pair with G. The four possible
conditions for any rung on the DNA ladder are AT, TA, CG, and GC.
To describe an organism, these bases are coded into a long string of DNA. This DNA coded string must be quite
long. The human description is about 3 billion base pairs long and consists of 24 DNA strings, called
chromosomes. The overall genetic material that describes any organism is called its genome. The genetic
material in each human consists of 2 sets of 23 chromosomes in each of about 10 billion cells in the body.
The top row in the figure below provides a code for making the substances used in the organism. The lower row
of the pair contains the same genetic information, but its code is the reciprocal of the code in the upper row.
Wherever a T appears in the top row, its reciprocal A appears in the lower. AT, CG and GC are the other
possibilities.
DNA strand prior to replication:
2 DNA strands after replication:
DNA reproduces by division. The top two rows in the above figure show a fragment of DNA before it starts to
reproduce. When the DNA replicates, it is immersed in a soup of bases from which it will select the "food" that it
needs as it grows. Other "helper" chemicals are also present. The DNA unzips on one end. The zipper moves
down the strand at a steady pace. Behind the zipper, the two strands are separated. Unattached bases are floating
on all sides. One by one, the proper complementary base is selected and attached to the free-floating half-strand.
When the zipper has completely separated the two halves of the original strand of DNA and the two halves have
completely filled their new complementary halves, the process is complete. The two separate but identical DNA
strands result.
DNA coding resembles computer binary coding in another way. Early personal computers used a series of binary
numbers that were eight positions long, such as 11001110 or 00011101. This was termed an eight bit wide word.
An eight bit word can encode all of the letters of the alphabet, for use in a word processor, for example, or it can
provide numbers from 0 to 255 for use in computation. Modern personal computers are much more versatile,
using word lengths of 32 or even 64 bits in length. Another common coding system is used in our written
language. It uses 26 possible conditions (a...z) and variable word lengths to provide a written symbol (code) for
every spoken word. DNA uses a much simpler system, which is only three positions wide, called codons. ATC,
TCG, and TTT would be examples of individual codons. Since a word length has three possible positions and
four possible conditions in each position, sixty-four possible combinations are possible. Not all these
combinations (codons) provide unique functions. DNA codons specify the construction of 20 possible amino
acids. These amino acids may be further combined to form more than 100,000 substances to be used in cell
construction and maintenance (in turn building and maintaining the host organism).
TOP
The Genome is a Digital Program.

When executed, it produces a human.
This section is repeated in Man, the Digital Machine. It is included here for continuity of thought.
The DNA which describes each individual is in a digital code. The code is made up of four possible values. In
number form, these could be expressed as 0, 1, 2, 3, but are normally expressed as four letter values: A, C, G,
and T. These are always paired with their reciprocal value (see the text OneLife for more detail). Note that the
DNA description of all living things is made up of only four basic construction blocks. There are about three
billion of these base pairs in the human genome. These are used in groups of three, called codons. Each codon
consists of three base pairs, each of which may carry one of four possible values. The number of codon values
which can be expressed in three elements of four values each is 64. Normally these values would be assigned as
0, 1, 2, etc. through the number 63. Instead, all possible codons are expressed in the following table:
AAA
AAC
AAG
AAT
ACA
ACC
ACG
ACT
AGA
AGC
AGG
AGT
ATA
ATC
ATG
ATT
CAA
CAC
CAG
CAT
CCA
CCC
CCG
CCT
CGA
CGC
CGG
CGT
CTA
CTC
CTG
CTT
GAA
GAC
GAG
GAT
GCA
GCC
GCG
GCT
GGA
GGC
GGG
GGT
GTA
GTC
GTG
GTT
TAA
TAC
TAG
TAT
TCA
TCC
TCG
TCT
TGA
TGC
TGG
TGT
TTA
TTC
TTG
TTT
Note that this list contains all of the possible codons, there are no CAA.5 or CTT 1/2 codons. The beauty of
things digital is the simplicity and precision. There are 64 precise arrangements of base pairs and only 64. All life
is constructed in response to these precise codon values, and no other.
Most of these sixty-four combinations are used to produce 20 protein building blocks, called amino acids, from
which the human organism is constructed. Some of the others are duplicates, and some are called "stop" codes.
The following list shows the correspondence between the codon values and the 20 amino acids which in man will
be produced from that coding:
Amino Acid
Codons which code for that amino acid
Alenine
GCA
GCC
Cysteine
TGC
TGT
Aspartic acid
GAC
GAT
Glutamic acid
GAA
GAG
Phenylalanine
TTC
TTT
Glycine
GGA
GGC
Histidine
CAC
CAT
Isoleucine
ATA
ATC
Lysine
AAA
AAG
Leucine
TTA
TTG
Methionine
ATG
Asparagine
AAC
AAT
Proline
CCA
CCC
Glutamine
CAA
CAG
Arginine
AGA
Serine
GCG
GCT
GGG
GGT
ATT
CTA
CTC
CTG
CTT
CCG
CCT
AGG
CGA
CGC
CGG
CGT
AGC
AGT
TCA
TCC
TCG
TCT
Theonine
ACA
ACC
ACG
ACT
Valine
GTA
GTC
GTG
GTT
Tryptophan
TGG
Tyrosine
TAC
TAT
The substance of the human body is constructed from proteins, which in turn are constructed from these 20
amino acids.
As the program in the genome is read codon by codon from a starting code to a codon stop code, the sequence of
codons dictate the construction of a protein. A particular series of codons will describe a particular protein which
the cell can produce. Such a sequence is called a gene. In the case of man, more than 80,000 different proteins
are manufactured in the cells from these digital formulas to form and maintain the overall organism. Some of
these proteins are quite complex. The final assembly may total many thousands of various amino acids, all
arranged precisely. The genome, then, is a precise digital formula which describes the construction of an entire
human being. These instructions include precise formulas for the material used to build the body and precise
assembly instructions as well.
Modern computers use binary arithmetic, where each position (bit) has a value of 0 or 1. Since larger numbers
are needed, a handier concept is a byte, consisting of eight bits and capable of a value from 0 to 255. The codon
set can be represented by assigning values from 0 to 63 and so fits well within a byte. The three billion byte
genome representation will fit in any hard disk of 3 gigabytes are more, well within the size range of modern
desk-top computers. This is the data base which describes man in such detail that it can actually construct an
entire human including all of the instructions for his development and demise. This is the raw data from which
knowledge may be obtained. Every particle of man is described in precise detail. Since his instinct detail is also
fixed by this coding, that will also be analyzed and cataloged. Since man is driven by his instinct in all social
actions, the initial propensity for a particular set of social drives is inherent in his DNA coding and so may be
uncovered individual by individual.
The gene is the primary carrier of inherited characteristics. The gene that controls a certain characteristic has a
particular physical location in the genome. Due to past mutations, many genes will have structural variability
within the population of a species. When two genes have the same purpose (for example eye color) but differ in
physical construction (same example blue and brown), they are called alleles. A gene may have many alleles
within a given species. The total of all of the genes in the population, including their alleles, is called the gene
pool of that species.
TOP
The Evolution Process

Evolution is the change with time of the gene pool of a species. The mechanisms of evolution are mutation,
natural selection, recombination and gene flow.
Mutation provides all initial change. A mutation occurs when the DNA does not replicate perfectly. When a
mutation occurs, a new allele is created. As a first approximation, these accidents (mutations) are random (can
occur at any location along the DNA). The rate of these accidents is relatively constant within a given species. If
the accident occurs in a critical location (believed to be less than 10% of the total in man), the result is usually
disastrous. Other areas will accept change with no immediate consequence. Once made, the mutation is
perpetuated and variability within the gene pool of the species is increased. Mutations add variability to the gene
pool.
Natural selection occurs when the viability of an allele is tested in real life. It makes only one test. Contrary to
popular opinion, evolution does not select the fittest, strongest, or most superior organism. It is instead a question
of how many offspring the organism will have which in turn will reach sufficient maturity to have its own
offspring. If the effect is positive, the allele will become a permanent part of the gene pool. If the effect is very
successful, it will quickly become a dominant allele. If the effect is neutral or negative, the allele will not spread
rapidly through the gene pool and, usually, will disappear from the gene pool. If more than one mutation is being
tested at the same time, usually the case, then it is the summed effect tested. Not all good mutations make it.
Some mutations would be good at one time and bad at another, depending on the environment then. A mutation
that was necessary at one time may become unnecessary at another time and be consequently negated. Most of
the time, the alleles removed or negated are those that harm the organism in that environment. Natural selection
removes variability from the gene pool.
The environment which an organism faces and must survive is a complex one, one which is more than climate
and food supply, although those are the essential elements that serve as a starting point in the study of evolution.
First of all, the mutation process is not altogether random. An intricate process called recombination developed
early in sexual animals. This process serves to mix the alleles available in the two parental gene sets to provide
more variability against the environment. It also results in many reproduction errors (mutations). Repair
functions were developed by evolution for DNA errors to offset this error propensity. Since both the dissection
means and the repair means are relatively fixed processes, then both the dissection errors and the errors in repair
will follow certain patterns. When these coincide, a new allele is formed. Mutations, then, occur in clusters
around particular loci not yet known or cataloged. Certain defects occur, therefore, with a given frequency,
which are wholly the result of the process and not the assumption of a defective ancestral gene.
Another factor which enters into genetic change is that the product of a purely random process (and a large part
of human mutations fit that description) will drift to one side or another until an outside force interferes with the
drift. For example, the human is now growing larger. If this is the result of genetic drift, it will continue until
some other process interferes, such as a shortage of food.
Most of the struggle in life is the struggle for enough food to avoid starvation and an ability to survive the
climate. This was the entire struggle at the beginning, but as life became more complex, the selection process
also became more complex. Once life began, however, other life became a part of its environment. The food
chains were started.
The basic element of species survival is the ability of the individual to survive long enough to insure the survival
of its offspring to the point when they also have offspring. If the offspring require no care, then the immediate
death of the parent is of no consequence. In the case of the higher animals, those which require care during their
maturation, the life of the caring parent must extend through that maturation period (and, of course, the parent
must perform its function properly).
If an animal must endure an environment in which its population is normally controlled by predators, it is usual
that the young suffer a higher death rate than the adults. In such cases the parents will usually live through
several breeding seasons, to offset losses of their young. Some animals resort to large numbers of offspring,
thereby feeding the predators, with enough left over to continue the species.
As animals became more complex, they themselves began to be an appreciable part of their own selection
(survival) environment. Herein lies the most complex of all genetic processes, and examples abound. Sexual
selection (based on an appearance which is sexually attractive) is probably (not for sure) the most common of
these. There are times when sexual selection actually harms the ability of the species to survive. There are
thousands of examples, but to select one, consider the Cardinal, a beautiful small bird that is quite common in
North America. Somewhere back in time, the drab little hens, who had drab little roosters as soul-mates, took a
liking to the color red and began choosing mates based on a hint of red in their feathers. Since they mated with
roosters who had red in their makeup, their offspring tended to have red in their feathers, which suited the next
generation of hens just fine. Quite quickly the rooster was a bright red, and the best target in the world for a
predator. The predator, usually a hawk, could lock on to that bright red target and have a meal in no time. As a
result the Cardinal rooster is quite skittish, and he should be, but without the red there is no sex and his genes
end.
Recombination occurs in sexually reproducing organisms, such as the human. The parent has two sets of
chromosomes in each cell, one from its father, the other from its mother. The sperm and the egg carry only one
set in each. The one set carried by the sperm or egg is not a whole set from either grandparent but is a mixture of
the two. Both original sets of chromosomes, in the case of each parent, are dissected and scrambled, then
reformed with entirely new combinations of alleles from both grandparents. This process adds variability to the
offspring and allows testing of new allele combinations. Recombination allows new combinations of the
variability in the gene pool
Gene flow occurs when populations of a species that have been separated are united and the differing sets of
alleles in each gene pool flow into the gene pool of the other. Our species, suddenly reunited with widespread
transportation, is an excellent example of this effect. Gene flow distributes the variability in the gene pool.
TOP
Direct Conclusions
This section contains conclusions derived from the study of the evolution process.
CONCLUSION 1: Evolution is a cruel and brutal process.
DISCUSSION:
Evolution is not a planned process. It does no engineering. The end products were never visualized. No goals
exist. There is no thought of failure or success. There is no seeking of perfection. There is no seeking of
anything. Evolution does not do anything. It only happens. Mutations produce chaos with genetic accident after
accident, most of which is eventually fatal. Evolution uses misery and death to sort it all out. Evolution produces
the strongest organism when the organism is in absolute misery. Rapid and early deaths make allele selections
quickly.
We are at the mercy of a merciless idiot that survives with no regard for the comfort of the organism. The
process of evolution has no goal, but its result is as if its only goal was to reproduce.
CONCLUSION 2: Evolution produces the worst possible organism that will still survive.
DISCUSSION:
Evolution has no goals. It is a mechanism without intelligence. It does not seek excellence. It does not seek
creature comfort. Genes that describe characteristics that are better than required in the current environment, will
suffer the same mutation rate as any other. A mutation is an accident. It is not a respecter of right and wrong or of
bad and good. Most mutations degrade the organism. When the characteristic, which was better than required,
suffers mutation, the environment will not weed out much of the degradation. The degradation will then spread
in the gene pool. The degradation of the once superior characteristic will continue with time until the
characteristic becomes so bad that it adversely affects the evolutionary reproduction rate. Further degradation
will be halted at that point and there it will stabilize at the point of the maximum misery that can still be
survived. If by chance a mutation should improve an already superior characteristic, it in time will suffer the
same fate.
CONCLUSION 3: Evolution is not compatible with any acceptable social structure.

DISCUSSION:
Conclusion 2 shows that evolution degrades the organism when the organism is environmentally comfortable,
since alleles that would otherwise fail can probably survive. Any form of compassionate culture interferes with
nature, since it subsidizes alleles that would otherwise fail and by that promotes their spread. If the criminals,
malcontents, insane, indolent and genetically crippled are condoned and subsidized so that their genes are
returned to the gene pool, evolution will see those conditions as beneficial for survival. The degrading alleles
will spread in the gene pool. The fastest growing segment of our species today is the welfare/prison population.
If that continues, evolution will see those conditions as beneficial. Another evolutionary effect concerns health
care. The more medicine and surgery we use, the more evolution will see to it that we need them. If we treat
(subsidize) physical and mental weaknesses instead of allowing nature to weed out the carriers of these deficient
genes, man will require ever increasing amounts of corrective medicine. Further to complicate the picture, the
above analysis is written from the perspective of the US. The human gene pool encompasses the entire world.
Our contribution to the overall pool is small. Many unseen problems lie in the rest of the world, in particular in
the underdeveloped nations, which could eclipse the above concerns.
CONCLUSION 4: Evolution is ongoing and inevitable.

DISCUSSION:
As long as we have DNA and are constructed from the patterns in our genome, accidents will occur in our
reproduction, most of them bad. If those accidents are not constantly weeded out by the environment (if we do
not suffer and die to rid ourselves of them), our species is in a constant state of degradation. Mutations are
inevitable.
CONCLUSION 5: Evolution inevitably leads to species extinction.

DISCUSSION:
Since evolution has no planning ability, its effect adjusts the species to bare survival under the current
environment. Since evolution is unable to change a species quickly, sudden environmental change can mean the
end of a species. Evolution will also build one species without regard to its danger to another. Ebola, polio, and
rattlesnakes are examples. It will build one species that serves as food for another. The most outstanding example
of the fickleness of evolution lies with the HIV virus. Evolution gave us an insatiable desire for sex, then blessed
us with a deadly virus passed by sex. Further to compound this issue, our culture condones both the act and the
disease, thus creating a disaster that has not played out yet.
Since evolution supplies a cliff-hanging balance between life and death, almost any accident can cause the
annihilation of a species. Since evolution is no more than a series of accidents, eventually such an accident will
happen to all.
CONCLUSION 6: Evolution has given us a genome that is a disease ridden pile of genetic garbage.
DISCUSSION:
Evolution has no housekeeping function. It is a lot like our congress that papers over old laws with new ones.
DNA changes always reflect what modern engineers call "a quick and dirty fix," when making a needed change.
It "patches" over problems. Modern DNA is littered with genetic debris. Over the billions of years since the
beginning, DNA in genomes has collected mutation on top of mutation. Whole genes are still being carried,
along with mutation after mutation gathered along the way, which eons ago were negated and not used since.
Genes that are still needed by the organism have been segmented and scattered. New creations exist alongside
old ones while dictating the opposite direction. Genes have been formed inside other genes. The same process
that gives variability also provides disaster after disaster. Thousands of genetic diseases and insufficiencies are
hidden in our gene pool. Explosive combinations wait for a chance to occur.
A basic modern engineering principle is KISS (keep it simple, stupid). More than 90% of the human genome is
considered junk DNA (it must be admitted that we cannot be sure of that figure until we know all of the
functions in the genome, which may take decades to learn). The rest, by nature of its patchwork creation, is at
best makeshift. Our genome is about three billion base pairs long. That means that it could contain up to 2.7
billion accident prone base pairs too many. And that thing dictates the formation of our bodies and our brains. It
is no wonder we have physical and mental problems. The wonder is that we function at all. It becomes obvious
why we spend such a huge percentage of our GNP on physical and mental health care.
CONCLUSION 7: The course of life dictated by the laws of nature is toward survival.
Any individual organism that deliberately subjects itself to unnecessary (imprudent) danger or harm is
perverted. Since the survival of the species is also vital to the survival of the individual, any individual that
deliberately (imprudently) harms the species is perverted. Since the survival of all life is vital to the
survival of both the individual and the species, then any individual that deliberately (imprudently) harms
life is also perverted.
The keyword is prudence (the application of intelligence). It may be necessary at times to harm in order to help.
The end goal of all individual action must be aimed at helping the individual, species and other life to survive.
CONCLUSION 8: Competition is essential in all life.

A universal observation about all mobile living organisms is competition. All healthy organisms wish to survive,
and that survival is not always limited to essentials. Competition is not necessarily combat, though combat may
be required in some instances in the struggle for survival. Some forms of competition require cooperation, where
the competitive aim is group survival (success). Compassion is a form of competition when it adds to the success
of group survival. Teaching one's offspring how to compete and survive is a form of competition.
Competition causes an organism to strive, to do its best, to excel. Even when not needed, the healthy organism
will practice its competitive skills in preparation for later need.
CONCLUSION 9: The mechanism of competition reacting with an environment produces stress, another
essential of life.
The neural firing rates in the human neural system are adjusted chemically. These rates are high in times of
danger and slow at times of rest. The chemical balance thus establishes the degree of stress. A moderate stress is
essential for organism well being
CONCLUSION 10: Genetic faults are not all inheritable

DNA replication is a complex mechanical process in which there are many opportunities for error. The
mechanical propensity for certain mutations will be higher than for others. Some errors will have a higher
frequency of occurrence than others. The first time occurrence of a particular mutation is not inherited but is the
result of inaccuracies in the replication process. Homosexuality, as an example, is a negative species survival
mutation since the mutants do not normally have offspring. Yet it occurs at a relatively fixed rate, indicating a
possible mode of replication failure. Note! The individual with the genetic fault may not be the one that is the
mutant. It for example, could be in the mother, who then causes the fault in the child even thought the fault itself
is not transmitted. Some such faults may not occur in a uniform way but show other factors, such as age or stress.
The human homosexual male occurs at higher rates in later births (and older mothers) indicating the possibility
that the mutation is a fault in the mother and one that intensifies with age or birth experience.
A mutation, therefore, may not be inherited at all but is instead one that happens frequently
CONCLUSION 11: Survivable mutations are finite in number.

Most mutations are not survivable and the fetus is aborted. This diminishes the range of survivable mutations to a
finite number, one which, in a large population, may repeat often. This multiple injection of a given fault into the
human gene pool is very damaging to the population, yet would not be solvable with selective breeding.
CONCLUSION 12: The female provides far more genetic function than the male.
The cell of the complex organism contains two sets of DNA. The nuclear DNA provides the organism shape and
function, whereas the mitochondrial DNA provides the functioning of the cell itself. In the case of a cell which
produces hair, for example, the nuclear DNA supplies the instructions for making the hair, the mitochondrial
DNA actually provides the manufacturing function.
Nuclear DNA is supplied by both parents. Only the mother supplies the mitochondrial DNA.
The nuclear DNA, once the organism is mature, rarely replicates. Mitochondrial DNA constantly replicates
during the life cycle. The replication stability of the mitochondrial DNA is therefore quite important in the wellbeing of the organism.
TOP
Discussion
Life is a fact in the universe. Life exists. It exists within the same rules in the universe that everything else must
follow. Evolution is a reactive process. Evolution is a requirement of life. The life produced by evolution is a part
of the universe, as is a galaxy and a grain of sand. Evolution has no compassion and it has no goals. A given
strain of life, while undergoing evolution and enduring a given environment, either survives or does not. The
survival of a species rests on the sum total of the individual actions of each member within that species. Action
by any member of a species, which is contrary to the survival of that species, is perverse (contrary to nature).
Evolution is obviously no friend of man or his culture. It brought us here, then dumped the whole problem on us.
Through sex it has a hammerlock on us that will be painful no matter what we do. It appears that we either return
to the tooth and claw so that nature can cleanse and maintain our gene pool, or watch ourselves sink back to the
status of the beginning man. The first would allow us to retain our stature at the cost of losing our humanity. The
latter is slower, but we lose both our stature and our humanity. Each choice is equally unacceptable. One thing is
clear: Slow degeneration is the default condition.
A big hope for the far future lies in the genome project. In time we can clean up our genome, streamline it down
to size, and then maintain it free of defects. This would take care of our problems with evolution but it might be
way far in the future. Many will say that this is an impossible job. The amount of technical work, alone, is
staggering. The mechanics of cleaning up the genome of all humankind all over the world appears impossible.
Pre-conception examinations of the haploid DNA may be a possibility and it would fit in with a need for
centralized genetic control. This may also turn out to be an impossible job. The only recourse then will be to start
a process by which a new super-DNA structure is introduced into the population on a scheduled basis, one that
will not mix, thus starting a new species to replace our own. Either technique will provide a great challenge to
overcome fears and objections.
TOP
Reader's Comments
READER'S COMMENT: I have read what was written on your webpage. It was very interesting and I accept
the "mechanisms of evolution" you present. I can see how they show evolution within a species, but I do not see
how they show evolution between species. Please explain how the evidence you present shows this.
AUTHOR'S REPLY:
In the beginning there was only one very small and very simple biological organism. As it evolved, it's features
diverged. Over the past 3.5 billion years or so, all of the various living organisms we see around us developed
from this continuing divergence.
Evolution is always working within every species, always changing each species in both form and function. If a
desirable mutation should occur in a very large gene pool (such as the human in China) it would be extremely
slow to become a standard feature of that gene pool since it must first propagate generation by generation across
the entire huge gene pool. A human feature or functional change in China might take hundreds of thousands of
years, for example. If a small human gene pool (tribe) should become isolated, by geographical separation
perhaps, the pool can change quite rapidly, on the order of a few thousand years. This is how the various human
races came to be. If the differentiation continued and the gene pools were not mixed, eventually the different
races would become different species. Modern transportation will never allow this to happen, of course.
Homo erectus existed for about 1.9 million years. It was a very successful human species and changed very
slowly over that period of time. We don't know for sure where the modern human (Homo sapiens sapiens)
developed, but it seemed to be quite sudden and happened about 180,000 years ago. It's a guess, but perhaps a
small Homo erectus tribe became completely isolated under severe environmental conditions, one that caused
rapid mutation selection so that the differences between erectus and sapiens occurred in a very short time. Such
large scale change in a short time could only occur in a very small gene pool.
The idea of a 'species' is a human one, an intellectual approximation that we use to help us categorize various
forms (organisms) of life. It is also a hazy concept, because every 'species' we define is actually in transition
from one species to another and in most cases there is at least one other organism which is quite similar to the
one being categorized, so similar that it is hard to call it a separate species. Even our categorization of the fossil
history of man is highly controversial. Who can say exactly when Australopithecus africanus ceased to exist and
Homo habilis began? Or were they merely variations in time within the same species?
So, the concept of 'species' is archaic. We thought that the forms of life were stable and that they could be
categorized in a fixed fashion. We find, instead, that what we now see as the current set of 'species' around us is
actually a current snapshot and that all of these 'species' are in transition.
READER'S COMMENT: Thank you for your explanation, but I see no proof of what you claim. I know of no
transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. From what I have read:
Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.
The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part
monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/
ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.
AUTHOR'S REPLY:
The determination of a species is highly a matter of opinion. One may, based on opinion alone, categorize a
particular hominid skeletal fossil as ape or man (or cat for that matter). There will even be disagreements among
those who are well versed in skeletal structure and corresponding function. One thing we can be sure of is that all
these hominid fossil examples consistently walked upright, a feature that is not ape-like, and that in time there
was a transition between the physical characteristics of the ancient ape and modern man. To say that prior to a
particular point along this lineage that they were all ape and after that point in time they were all human would
indicate that there is some form of natural function at work that has not been observed and can't be logically
developed from the abundant available real knowledge.
There are other considerations: notably the element of time. Through various means these fossils may be dated.
The chronology of the fossils corresponds with the order in the development of the hominid from the ancient ape
to the modern man. These methods of time determination are proven. Time and again they have been challenged,
but never disproved. Those fossils existed in the time frame we can measure.
The fossil record of the hominid shows a steady progression from the ancient primate to the modern human.
Each fossil 'species' is a 'link' between the one before and the one after. Only with great effort can one view this
evidence and refuse to see this transition. Similar transitions are visible in all other species.
Evolution as a process is a matter of fact. It can be and has been proven time and again in the laboratory.
Observations in the laboratory correlate with observations in the outside world. The evidence is overwhelming if
taken in total. If man is real, the universe is real, and there is no perverse deity making fools of us all then
evolution as a natural process does exist and modern man is an evolved descendent from an ancient primate.
READER'S COMMENT: I wonder how a single cell could have evolved, since a cell cannot function or
survive without all of its parts.
AUTHOR'S REPLY:
Evolution is a demonstrable, provable, measurable process involving DNA with associated non-living biological
chemicals. In the beginning this DNA was in a sea of such chemicals. It did not require the protection of the cell.
Evolution produced the cell. It is the DNA that evolves. It doesn't matter whether it is in a single cell or not. It
doesn't matter whether it is in cooperation with other cells. It doesn't matter whether it is alone in a soup, in a
cell, in a tree or in a human. It is the DNA which evolves. The form of the biological organism (species) follows
from the DNA.
The process of the evolution which brought about the development of the cell is extremely complex, far more
complex than the development of the human from the ancient primate. There are many good college texts that
cover this topic quite well. My favorite is MOLECULAR BIOLOGY OF THE CELL by Alberts, Bray, Lewis,
Raff, Roberts and Watson, Garland Publishing - ISBN 0-8153-1619-4. If you are serious about the subject you
will find this text fascinating, all 1200 pages of it.
TOP
Early Evolution
Early Evolution
The most complex evolution of life, and the most unlikely, took place long before the hominid appeared. It
was a billion years after life appeared before the cell. It was the cell which become the basis for all modern
life forms.
INTRODUCTION
The information in this section is not hard science. Known evidence and measurement support this account. No
known evidence or measurement dispute it. The conclusions drawn are not dependent on this introductory
material.
The evolution of life from its beginning through the development of the metazoa (primitive multicellular
organisms) took billions of years. The earth's atmosphere did not contain oxygen when the earth formed 4.6
billion years ago. This reducing environment provided favorable conditions for the natural synthesis of the first
organic compounds. The first phospholipid bilayer membranes formed along with primitive RNA and DNA
genetic molecules. The membranes adsorbed proteins and the hereditary DNA/RNA material. From these organic
molecules, the first primitive prokaryote (simple single cell organism lacking a nucleus) arose. Natural selection
began.
The carbon dioxide in our atmosphere contains both 12C and 13C isotopes. When the carbon atoms of CO2 are
captured by organisms in photosynthesis, the organisms show a definite preference for the light 12C isotope of
carbon. They will incorporate the 12C isotope into the proteins, sugars, and other molecules that they synthesize
preferentially to the heavier 13C isotope. Rocks that are 3.4 billion years old have been discovered which are
enriched with the 12C isotope. The concentration of the 12C isotope shows the presence of photosynthesis.
These early photosynthetic organisms used H2S as a source of hydrogen atoms instead of water and did not
file:///C|/onelifebook/evolve/cellev.html (1 of 3)1/25/2007 4:50:50 PM
Early Evolution
produce oxygen as a by-product.

Ancient sediments are found which are rich in iron (Fe2+) as water soluble compounds. Beginning at about 2.5
billion years ago, the sediments began showing iron oxides containing Fe3+ ions that were not water soluble.
This shows that the atmosphere had changed from a reducing environment to an oxidizing one where oxygen was
present. The oxygen in the atmosphere appears to have been generated by living organisms carrying out oxygenproducing photosynthesis. These newer organisms could obtain hydrogen by breaking down water instead of
H2S to produce the hydrogen needed to synthesize carbon compounds. As a by-product of breaking down water,
oxygen gas is formed.
In the next billion years following the evolution of aerobic photosynthesizing bacteria, the first cells arose which
had lost the ability to carry out photosynthesis and thus the ability to manufacture their own food from inorganic
material. These cells relied on organic material (other life) as their source of food. The food chain was begun.
About 1.3 billion years ago the first

eukaryote (a single cell organism with a
complex inner structure) which contained
many internal organelles such as
mitochondria appeared, having evolved
from the prokaryote. From the eukaryote,
the multicellular metazoa (shown at left)
evolved about 680 million years ago. All
modern complex life developed from
these.
Human Male Genome

G Banded Metaphase
.
.
Early Evolution
Photomicrograph by Christine
Disteche, Department of Pathology,
University of Washington
Once complex organisms began evolving, the DNA became quite complex. Pictured is a human genome, some 3
billion base pairs long.
Human Evolution
The Evolution of the Human

The universe is constructed from a multitude of various materials. It is dynamic in form and shape
due to a multitude of various processes and interactions between these materials. To the human,
however, in his need to establish his place and purpose in the universe, the most important
material is biological and the most important process is evolution, far it is only here that the
human can learn to understand himself, an understanding that is vital to his survival.
Wise men, psychologists, philosophers and theologians have surmised and conjectured about the
human over the centuries, and still do, but the truth about the human may be found only through
factual knowledge. That factual knowledge lies in a process called evolution. The human is what
evolution made him.
HOMO HABILIS
The first Homo
2.2-1.6 million years ago
This magnificent re-creation
is by Professor Grover Krantz
file:///C|/onelifebook/evolve/manev.html (1 of 19)1/25/2007 4:50:52 PM
Human Evolution
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
HISTORY OF MAN
HISTORY OF MAN - AN EXPANSION
THE NEANDERTAL
HOW EVOLUTION WORKS
INSTINCT AND INTELLIGENCE
THE EVOLUTION OF THE BRAIN
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
Summary of Findings
Man has been a tribal animal since he first walked erect, more than four million years ago. With the impediment
of being bipedal, he could not out-climb or outrun his predators. Only through tribal cooperation could he hold
his predators at bay.
For two million years, the early hominid was a herd/tribal animal, primarily a herd herbivore. During the next
two million years the human was a tribal hunter/warrior. He still is. All of the human's social drives developed
long before he developed intellectually. They are, therefore, instinctive. Such instincts as mother-love,
compassion, cooperation, curiosity, inventiveness and competitiveness are ancient and embedded in the human.
They were all necessary for the survival of the human and pre-human. Since human social drives are instinctive
(not intellectual), they can not be modified through education (presentation of knowledge for future assimilation
and use). As with all other higher order animals, however, proper behavior may be obtained through training
(edict and explanation followed by enforcement).
The intellect, the magnitude of which separates the human from all other animals, developed slowly over the
entire four million years or more of the human development. The intellect is not unique to the human, it is quite
well developed in a number of the other higher animals. The intellect developed as a control over instincts to
provide adaptable behavior. The human is designed by nature (evolution) to modify any behavior that would
normally be instinctive to one that would provide optimum benefit (survivability). This process is called selfcontrol or self-discipline, and is the major difference between the human and the lower order animals, those that
apply only instinct to their behavioral decisions. Self-discipline, therefore, is the measuring stick of the human.
The more disciplined behavior (behavior determined by intellect) displayed by the individual, the more human he
becomes. The less disciplined behavior (behavior in response to instinct) displayed by an individual, the more he
becomes like the lower order animals that are lacking in intellect and are driven by their instincts.
TOP
Human Evolution
Background and Introduction

The direct lineage from the ancestor of both man and the modern apes to modern man is not known. Evidence is
increasing. Thousands of relics fit the general pattern.
The word hominidae is used to describe the total member species of the human family that have lived since the
last common ancestor of both man and the apes. A hominid is an individual species within that family. The field
of science which studies the human fossil record is known as paleoanthropology. It is the intersection of the
disciplines of paleontology (the study of ancient life forms) and anthropology (the study of humans). Each
hominid name consists of a genus name (e.g. Australopithecus, Homo) which is always capitalized, and a species
name (e.g. africanus, erectus) which is always in lower case.
Some controversy exists on the time of this common ancestor to both ape and human, but it is believed to be
about 5.5 million years ago. A key fossil record near that time is Ramapithecus, which was believed to be an
early hominid for many years, but is now considered an ancient ape that lived near the fork in our common
lineage. Ramapithecus is now thought to be an ancestor of the modern apes.
From a genome viewpoint, the difference between modern man and the modern apes is quite small, about 2
percent. From a physical viewpoint, the greatest difference is in locomotion. The human walks upright. It is
generally thought that this came about when the ancient hominid adopted the edge of the forest and plain and
adapted to a life under the trees as opposed to in them. Fossil evidence shows that this bipedal adaptation was
completed quite early, perhaps as early as four million years ago, long before we looked like or thought like we
do today. Facial feature changes toward the modern appearance came much later. The facial characteristics of
modern man are about 100,000 years old. The faces of earlier hominid were much more apelike.
Controversy exists over whether brain size alone shows intellectual ability, but our only measure of intellectual
growth in the hominid record is brain size. The fossil evidence, except for one notable blip, shows a steady
growth in brain size. This can be misleading due to the different sizes of the people. Early man (with perhaps
three exceptions) was quite small and the males were much larger than the females.
From a cultural viewpoint, modern man and the other apes are quite similar in some respects. Sexual practices of
modern humans are quite similar to the chimpanzee (although stoutly denied by some), but with far more
homosexual activity. Although homosexual play is common among the apes, a totally homosexual ape is rare. It
is estimated that about 10% of the human population is so oriented.
The modern human's trend toward family dissolution places the human only a few percentage points from that of
the chimp. In fact, unlike man, a gorilla male must be physically driven away and held at bay before he will leave
his family. A great ape will rarely kill another member of the same species. On the other hand, music and art are
peculiarities of the human and have no counterpart in any ape society.
Human Evolution
TOP
History of Man
SPECIES
TIME PERIOD
Ardipithicus ramidus
5 to 4 million years ago
Australopithecus anamensis
4.2 to 3.9 million years ago
Australopithecus afarensis
4 to 2.7 million years ago
Australopithecus africanus
3 to 2 million years ago
Australopithecus robustus
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Homo sapiens archaic
400 to 200 thousand years ago
Homo sapiens neandertalensis
200 to 30 thousand years ago
Homo sapiens sapiens
200 thousand years ago to present
The times of existence of the various hominid shown in the chart above are based on dated fossil remains. Each
species may have existed earlier and/or later than shown, but fossil proof has not been discovered yet. There is
also dispute concerning many overlapping species, for example, the overlap between Homo habilis and Homo
erectus. It could well be that the two are continuing examples of the same species. The same dispute exists with
Homo erectus, Homo sapiens archaic and homo sapiens sapiens. If all species have been discovered and the
lineage of man lies within them, the most probable lineage would include all but the robust Australopithecines
and the neandertal.
The following chronology is abbreviated:
The earliest fossil hominid, Ardipithecus ramidus, is a recent discovery. It is dated at 4.4 million years ago. The
remains are incomplete but enough is available to suggest it was bipedal and about 4 feet tall. Other fossils were
found with the ramidus fossil which would suggest that ramidus was a forest dweller. A new skeleton was
recently discovered which is about 45% complete. It is now being studied.
A new species, Australopithecus anamensis, was named in 1995. It was found in Allia Bay in Kenya.
Anamensis lived between 4.2 and 3.9 million years ago. Its body showed advanced bipedal features, but the
skull closely resembled the ancient apes.
Australopithecus afarensis lived between 3.9 and 3.0 million years ago. It retained the apelike face with a
sloping forehead, a distinct ridge over the eyes, flat nose and a chinless lower jaw. It had a brain capacity of
about 450 cc. It was between 3'6" and 5' tall. It was fully bipedal and the thickness of its bones showed that it
Human Evolution
was quite strong. Its build (ratio of weight to height) was about the same as the modern human but its head and
face were proportionately much larger. This larger head with powerful jaws is a feature of all species prior to
Homo sapiens sapiens.
Australopithecus africanus was quite similar to afarensis and lived between three and two million years ago. It
was also bipedal, but was slightly larger in body size. Its brain size was also slightly larger, ranging up to 500 cc.
The brain was not advanced enough for speech. The molars were a little larger than in afarensis and much larger
than modern human. This hominid was a herbivore and ate tough, hard to chew, plants. The shape of the jaw was
now like the human.
Australopithecus aethiopicus lived between 2.6 and 2.3 million years ago. This species is probably an ancestor
of the robustus and boisei. This hominid ate a rough and hard to chew diet. He had huge molars and jaws and a
large sagittal crest. A sagittal crest is a bony ridge on the skull extending from the forehead to the back of the
head. Massive chewing muscles were anchored to this crest. See the opening picture of an early Homo habilis
for an example. Brain sizes were still about 500cc, with no indication of speech functions.
Australopithecus robustus lived between two and 1.5 million years ago. It had a body similar to that of
africanus, but a larger and more massive skull and teeth. Its huge face was flat and with no forehead. It had large
brow ridges and a sagittal crest. Brain size was up to 525cc with no indication of speech capability.
Australopithecus boisei lived between 2.1 and 1.1 million years ago. It was quite similar to robustus, but with
an even more massive face. It had huge molars, the larger measuring 0.9 inches across. The brain size was about
the same as robustus. Some authorities believe that robustus and boisei are variants of the same species.
Homo habilis was called the handy man because tools were found with his fossil remains. This species existed
between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago. The brain size in earlier fossil specimens was about 500cc but rose to
800cc toward the end of the species life period. The species brain shape shows evidence that some speech had
developed. Habilis was about 5' tall and weighed about 100 pounds. Some scientists believe that habilis is not a
separate species and should be carried either as a later Australopithecine or an early Homo erectus. It is
possible that early examples are in one species group and later examples in the other.
Homo erectus lived between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago. It was a successful species for a million and a
half years. Early examples had a 900cc brain size on the average. The brain grew steadily during its reign.
Toward the end its brain was almost the same size as modern man, at about 1200cc. The species definitely had
speech. Erectus developed tools, weapons and fire and learned to cook his food. He traveled out of Africa into
China and Southeast Asia and developed clothing for northern climates. He turned to hunting for his food. Only
his head and face differed from modern man. Like habilis, the face had massive jaws with huge molars, no chin,
thick brow ridges, and a long low skull. Though proportioned the same, he was sturdier in build and much
stronger than the modern human.
Homo sapiens (archaic) provides the bridge between erectus and Homo sapiens sapiens during the period
200,000 to 500,000 years ago. Many skulls have been found with features intermediate between the two. Brain
averaged about 1200cc and speech was indicated. Skulls are more rounded and with smaller features. Molars and
brow ridges are smaller. The skeleton shows a stronger build than modern human but was well proportioned.
Homo sapiens neandertalensis lived in Europe and the Mideast between 150,000 and 35,000 years ago.
Human Evolution
Neandertals coexisted with H.sapiens (archaic) and early H.sapiens sapiens. It is not known whether he was
of the same species and disappeared into the H.sapiens sapiens gene pool or he may have been crowded out of
existence (killed off) by the H.sapien sapien. Recent DNA studies have indicated that the neandertal was an
entirely different species and did not merge into the H. sapiens sapiens gene pool. Brain sizes averaged larger
than modern man at about 1450cc but the head was shaped differently, being longer and lower than modern man.
His nose was large and was different from modern man in structure. He was a massive man at about 5'6" tall with
an extremely heavy skeleton that showed attachments for massive muscles. He was far stronger than modern
man. His jaw was massive and he had a receding forehead, like erectus.
Homo sapiens sapiens first appeared about 120,000 years ago. Modern humans have an average brain size of
about 1350 cc.
TOP
History of Man - an Expansion

This section is a narrative based on the physical evidence in the introduction above. It is speculative, but it is
believed that any reasonable alternative would lead to the same conclusions. The author solicits other opinions.
Evolution appears to work in bursts of activity. A species may survive for a very long time, even millions of
years, with relatively little change, then suddenly, seemingly overnight, a variant species springs from it. Several
such cases are evident among the hominid. When populations are large, species drift is very slow, regardless of
species. Evolution works best when a small population of a species becomes isolated and faced suddenly with
new hazards. The environment provides early and quick death to quickly weed out deleterious mutations and the
small population provides a small gene pool across which helpful mutations may quickly spread.
This is the manner in which the first hominid, the walking ape, appeared. Although no one knows what
specifically happened or where, a small pocket of primates were somehow isolated in an area where there were
no cats (the main primate predator) and the food supply was short, perhaps even dwindling.
In warmer and wetter times, huge forests abounded across Africa. Both the ancient primates and felines were
widespread. Then the climate changed. Forests dwindled. Patches of forests became isolated, causing animal
interchange to become quite difficult. In most such patches, both primate and feline survived. The shortage of
food, perhaps growing worse daily, drove some of the primates to the forest floor in search of food. There they
became food for the cats. Life was too grim and short for a new ground dwelling primate species to develop.
But somewhere there was an unusual valley, one completely isolated from all the others, and something there
eliminated the cat. Perhaps it was a disease. Perhaps it was a famine of all animal life, with the sole animal
survivor being the primate. There must always be a large numerical ratio between food supply and predator.
Perhaps it was a small valley, too small to support a large enough cat gene pool for the cat survival, but large
Human Evolution
enough to support bare primate survival. Or, more likely, the small valley was over-harvested by the cats to the
point that only the primates, safe high in the trees, survived, and the cat was starved out of existence. The primate
in that valley was then able to spread safely to the forest floor. The walking ape was born. The original primate
species still ruled the forest canopy, while this new species, in the absence of felines, was dominant on the forest
floor.
Then the climate changed, reopening the valley for the transit of both primate and feline. The tree-top primate
rejoined his fellows and their gene pools blended. The feline was re-introduced to the valley. The bipedal ape on
the forest floor was introduced to his new predator. If that introduction had been sudden, the bipedal ape could
not have survived. Perhaps there were other valleys in which that actually happened. Luckily, in this one, it was
slow, and the walking ape had time to adjust to his new danger. He formed defensive groups and developed
defensive strategies.
That first hominid was Ardipithecus Ramidus. He lived on the forest floor. His close cousin, the primeval ape
Ramapithecus, lived overhead. Ramidus had become a herbivore. Ramapithecus was an omnivore. Ramidus
had feet on one end. Ramapithecus had hands on both ends. They were about the same size and had about the
same intelligence. When the predator came, Ramapithecus escaped into the trees. With four hands he could out
climb even the ancient leopard. In spite of the leopard, ramidus had to stay in the forest, being on the open
plains was certain death. He was neither fast enough nor strong enough to handle the big plains' cats. While in
the forest, ramidus could at least jump into a tree and escape the big ground cats, but he was still easy prey for
the leopard. The death rate, especially among the children, was high. A pregnant woman had no chance at all.
Something had to change. Ramidus learned how to cooperate in defense and he learned how to use a club. His
culture became more restricted and structured.
The idea of a club was not new. Modern chimps will use one to beat on the ground in trying to drive off an
interloper. The chimp does not need to learn how to use one well because he can always take to the high trees.
Chimps will even cooperate in driving off interlopers by jumping up and down and screaming. They do not need
to learn how to cooperate in fighting. They can always take to the trees. Ramidus did not have that choice.
Ramidus now had two things that kept him out of the trees in times of danger: his feet and the club. When the
leopard came, he had no chance without the club whether he met the cat on the ground or in the tree. Climbing a
tree in a hurry with two feet that cannot grasp anything and a club in one hand while trying to escape from a big
cat would be an exciting experience. His women and children had no chance at all without his protection on the
ground. Ramidus learned to get shoulder to shoulder with his friends, club at the ready, in front of the women
and children, and stand his ground, no matter what the animal was. Now he did not have to live under the trees.
He could live anywhere he pleased. They moved out on the plains.
Meanwhile, ramidus was also having deep trouble trying to make a living. He was a herbivore, the available
food was coarse and hard to chew and his chewing apparatus had been designed to fit the needs of an omnivore
who ate much fruit. The women, especially, were having real problems in caring for the children while foraging.
The life style was brutal, and the death rate was high. Evolution loves a high death rate.
Evolution had few options. Ramidus could not return to the jungle. He was built wrong. He was structurally too
slow to convert to a plain's predator. Besides, he was primarily a vegetarian and did not have the physical
equipment to tear meat off his prey. Birth rate increases would require major physical changes. Only cultural
changes were available. The women needed more time to take care of the children and the children would fare
Human Evolution
better if they did not need to be out on the plains. The males needed to take more of the burden. The tribe needed
a safe haven for the women and children, preferably one with some protection from the weather. The old men
could stand guard and the young ones could take their clubs with them and forage. Since they were bipedal, they
had two arms to haul the food back to camp.
By the time Australopithecus afarensis appeared, some structural improvements had been made. His head was
proportionately larger with a much improved eating apparatus, with molars that were much larger. The size of the
canine teeth had diminished (evolution diminishes things not needed). His jaw was heavier and had huge
chewing muscles attached. The male was also a little taller and heavier and the female was smaller because of
their differing roles. A slight brain size increase provided improved social interaction. With the following
Australopithecus africanus, they survived, in balance with nature, for almost two million years. Still, life was
short, child mortality high, and hardship was constant. Evolution had honed the species to fit the environment
and was now in balance. The people were tough, hard-working and resilient. Man had joined the other plains'
animals in a balance with nature that appeared stable (not fun, but at least survivable). Many other plain's animals
had also reached a stability in their evolution, one that exists to this day. If something had not happened to upset
this balance, man would still be there today, mingling with the gnus and wildebeests.
Several things happened to spur further development. With their stronger culture, they could survive the plains
better than the other herd herbivores. Their population grew. Competition was high for food. Other species
branched off: Australopithecus aethipicus came first, followed by robustus and boisei. These were bigger and
tougher competitors for the same food supply.
Somewhere along in that last million years of the reign of africanus, someone sharpened a stick, perhaps to use
to dig roots, and discovered that a spear was a much more effective weapon for some uses than a club. A club is a
good defensive weapon. When a club is used against an animal other than man, it is immediately available for
another swing. It is not too good against another man. He will usually grab it on the way in and the advantage is
lost. The aim of a club is usually to discourage, not to kill, and it is more effective against an animal than a man.
A spear is an offensive weapon. It has only one purpose: to kill. Still, though skill is present in its use, it often
sticks in the adversary and is torn from the hands when the adversary twists away. Looking bare-handed into the
eye of a tiger with an out-of-reach spear sticking out of his shoulder is not healthy. The tiger gets down right
irritated under such circumstances. Smacking him up side the head with a club, on the other hand, leaves the
defender still armed. The spear works best in sneak attacks. Stalk and kill is spear territory. A few good men,
working as a hunter-killer team, could now hunt and kill any animal on the plains, including other men.
Life became even more precarious, the favorite working ground for evolution. The greatest dangers that man
now faced were other men. When man goes against man, and the weapons are the same, cunning is usually the
deciding factor. A spear is a great equalizer in size, so growing bigger was not as effective as a survival move as
growing smarter. Unfortunately, becoming more vicious was also effective. The docile hominid cow of the plains
became a warrior. His culture was now much more complex, one that needed careful planning and leadership.
This required intelligence and language.
Homo habilis was the transition man. Starting with a 500cc brain, it grew to a respectable 800cc. Habilis
developed from a brutish and dim-witted herd animal to a competent man. The Broca's area in his brain became
developed showing the existence of a workable vocabulary. He invented the use of fire for cooking, warmth and
keeping wild animals at bay. He invented the stone axe. He also may have eliminated the last of that big tough
robustus and boisei bunch. For some reason they disappeared about that time. For sure there was no one else on
Human Evolution
the plains who could have done them in.

Then, about 1.8 million years ago, Homo erectus came: mighty warrior, skilled hunter, inventor, farranging explorer and king of all he surveyed. The size of a modern human and standing as straight, he
developed a 1250cc brain, very close to modern man. Along the way he developed many new tools and weapons,
invented clothing, and traveled out of Africa, the first hominid to do so. He went across southeast Asia, into
northern China and south to Java. He was now an omnivore who ate mostly meat, both animals and fish. He
cooked his food. Evolution had noted the softer food, and degraded his magnificent chewing apparatus. By the
end of his reign, his molars and jaw had shrunk to almost that of modern man.
The culmination of man's evolution was Homo sapiens (archaic). It has been down hill ever since. He came
about 300,000 years ago, straight and tall, muscular, hardened and practical, with almost a full size brain, the
result of four million years of evolution. Humankind was now a veteran of millions of deaths and countless
hardships, with a population so small that mutations spread rapidly. His gene pool had little variability. Natural
selection (death and misery) had kept him pared. Only the strongest, the most cunning, and the most stubborn
survived.
Then came modern man, an anticlimax, about 120,000 years ago. From this point on his inventive mind would
devise method after method to ease his lot. He would remove his enemies without compassion. He would learn to
enslave other animals and even other men. He would greedily take from the world around him and from those
who were weaker. He would make his life easier, and evolution would degrade him to match.
TOP
The Neandertal
Human Evolution
Concluding this story without giving tribute to an enigma in our history would not be proper. The Homo sapiens
neandertalensis does not quite fit in our story. They probably came from far northern Europe, the descendants
of an ancient Homo erectus tribe, a tribe that had migrated to that region many hundreds of thousands of years
before. They had many physical characteristics of the modern Eskimo, who is well tuned to arctic living. They
were stocky, almost massive, in build. The males were about 5'6" tall but they were much heavier and stronger
than modern man. They had the large pronounced cheeks usually associated with cold weather adaptation. They
walked as erectly as modern man. Their tools paralleled the coexisting Homo sapiens sapiens, but it is not
known who copied. Although lacking a forehead, they had brains that averaged 1450cc, about 8% larger than
modern man. They were the first to bury their dead, complete with flowers and artifacts. Were they cunning
beasts? Or were they gentle and intelligent people? And what happened to them? Were they of the same species
and their genes disappeared into a much larger pool? Or, (the most likely) did they get in the way of the early
Homo sapiens sapiens and were simply exterminated? Late evidence in a study of the DNA from fossil remains
seem to indicate that the neandertal was not assimilated into the gene pool of modern man.
TOP
How Evolution Works
Human Evolution
Mutations are accidents in reproduction. The only place where such mutations can occur is in the production of
the haploid cells (cells with a single set of chromosomes) in the sperm and egg, or in the joining of the two in
conception. A reproduction accident anywhere else in the body will affect only the cell that suffers the accident.
Such accidents will not be added into the gene pool and thus are not mutations. In such an accident, the sick cell
is quickly replaced by a well one and the incident is over. Yet when such an accident occurs in the sperm or egg,
it will appear in every cell in the offspring. This mutation then has a 50% chance of occurring in each grandchild.
If the recipient of the mutation has several children, the odds are that the mutation will join the species gene pool
by way of one or more of his children.
Natural selection then determines the fate of the mutation in the species gene pool. The test is not survivability or
excellence. The test is in species population growth. If the mutation aids the growth of the species population
then it is successful and will remain in the gene pool. If it does not, natural selection will remove it from the gene
pool (through death and hardship).
Here are a few examples concerning man and evolution to help gain understanding of the way evolution works.
The effects shown are not necessarily caused by genetics, but evolution treats all conditions as if they were. Note
that natural selection acts as if all genes are involved in the success or failure of the individual. Each case that
reduces the expected offspring is considered a vote against each gene in the genome. Each case that equals or
exceeds the expected offspring is considered a vote for each gene in the genome. The mixing of genes in
recombination allow individual allele selection over the long period of time.
Effect1: The new gene shortens the life to 35 years. Natural selection would not see this defect as detrimental
since the children will be old enough to fend for themselves by that time.
Effect2: The parent has too many children. If so many children were born that the resulting death or misery rate
reduced the number of the children who had children, evolution would see this as detrimental. If society takes
care of his children for him they will be healthy enough to raise more children and evolution would judge the
condition as beneficial
Effect3: The parent does not take good care of his children. If society does not interfere by taking care of the
children for him, the suffering children are less likely to raise children of their own and evolution would judge
that the condition is detrimental. If society cares for his children, evolution will judge the condition beneficial.
Effect4: The new gene lengthens life to 150 years. Evolution will not see this change as beneficial. Neither will it
see later mutations that degrade it as detrimental, until the life expectancy gets so low that it affects child bearing
and raising.
Effect5: The man is a murderer of children. His murder of someone else's children will affect the evaluation of
the genes of their parents adversely. If the murderer has sufficient children of his own, evolution will not see
anything detrimental in his lineage.
Effect6: The man is cruel and vicious with his wife. As long as he does not kill her or otherwise render her
unable to care for her children, evolution will see no harm. Even if he kills her and society takes over the raising
of his children, evolution will still see no harm
Effect7: The man dies of an accident before he has children. Natural selection will see this death as detrimental
Human Evolution
Effect8: A young lady decides not to marry and have children. Natural selection will see this as detrimental.
Effect9: A man decides to adopt children instead of having his own. Natural selection will vote for the genes of
the natural parents of the children and vote against the adoptive parent's gene set.
A great difference clearly exists between the goals of evolution and those of a compassionate culture. We are
built one way, but we want to be another way. Luckily there is a large overlap where both evolution and man
desire the same thing. Unfortunately, where we differ the choices are all quite painful
TOP
Instinct and Intelligence

What is instinct? It is the driving force in the behavior of an organism and is directly determined by genetic code.
Early single-cell organisms, billions of years ago, developed sensors to detect light and an instinct to swim
toward that light. Others developed poison darts and sensors to tell when another organism was near. When their
sensors said that something was near, their instinct fired the darts to obtain a meal. With the development of
sexual reproduction, the instinct of sexual desire provided the drive for reproduction.
The northern pike is a fish in the lakes of northern North America. It is a predator. If one is placed in a tank of
water and a smaller fish tossed into the tank, the pike will quickly eat it. If two fish of equal size are tossed into
the pond, it will eat the closest one first. If the two fish are of unequal size but are placed in the tank equally far
from the pike, it will eat the largest first. If the larger one is farther away, it will still eat the larger one first up to
a certain distance differential. If the larger one is too far away, it will eat the small one first. It judges the relative
distance of the two fish, juggles that with the size of the fish, then optimizes his chance for the most food. This is
called reasoning. Yet the pike can be raised in isolation and it will still do this. This is called instinct. The
parameters of the calculation are fixed in his genetic description.
The purple martin can fly beautifully, directly out of the box. Flying is not easy. It requires much skill, but the
purple martin chick does it the first time. Adult martins will make sure he practices awhile, that first time out, but
he knows how to do it. That is instinct. He is fix-wired to fly well, to a point. He usually falls right out of the
tree, the first time he lands. If he tries to land on a pole, he will usually fall off or slide down. His genetic code
prepared him for flying, those parameters are fixed, but it did not directly prepare him for every possible landing
site. It gave him memory and a landing formula for that. Watch that chick a week later and see a perfect landing
every time. He has learned how to grab onto the standard surfaces. He has learned. He remembers what he has
learned and uses that knowledge to control his claws when he lands. That is reasoning. Yet he does not need
another martin to teach him. That is instinct.
Reasoning of this type in man is indistinguishable to him from intellectual reasoning. The reasoning mechanism
Human Evolution
is fixed and is the same one used in both cases. The only difference in the process is that intellectual reasoning
follows a learned process (program) stored in a learning memory (RAM). The pike follows a process (program)
stored in fixed memory (ROM). Most reasoning by man, which he considers to be intellectual, is not intellectual
at all. All cultural (emotional) interactive reasoning processes are of the fixed type, embedded eons ago. Modern
data may be fed into these processes from memory or senses, but the process is instinctive. Anything involving
mother love or sex, for example, will be reasoned following ancient fixed processes.
It is the author's contention that there is no distinction between instinct and intelligence (which includes memory
and reasoning) other than in size, relative proportions and complexity. They are dimensions of the same structure
and are decreed by the coding in the DNA. Pure reasoning in the human is not only a myth but is impossible. His
method of thinking, utilization of memory, and problem solving skills, are all fixed by his DNA, a DNA
designed by an idiot. Man can conceive the idea of pure objective thought, but he is incapable of it. Man is a
subjective organism. Evolution took millions of years to make sure of it. He can talk about objectivity all he
wants, he can foolishly believe that he is being objective, but there is no way that he can remove himself from his
own instinct-reasoning programming. Ancient instincts and modern intellect are seamlessly intertwined in his
brain. The idea of pure objective thought is no more than another example of man's ability to conceive the perfect
bird or animal trap or the advantages of moving to another valley that he has not seen yet. Man cannot fly to the
moon. However, he could conceive the idea and then build a machine that will take him there. He is not ashamed
in the least of using the machine. Still, when he considers pure objective thought in dealing with personal things,
such as his culture, his arrogance forces him to believe that he can 'fly to the moon' without any outside help. He
will become quite irritated with suggestions to the contrary (the irritation alone illustrates the degree of his
objectivity). Similarly, there is no reason that man cannot build a machine (perhaps even an organic one) which
is capable of 'pure' reason. Only a machine designed for the purpose could be completely objective. His biggest
problem will be in defining 'pure' reason. Incidently, this is a machine that we should be working on now with a
high priority. Think of it, intelligence without instincts. We need it badly. Elect one for president. Put a bunch
more on the bench.
The long term result of evolution is bare survival. If the organism is in distress, the higher death rate
removes survival impediments rapidly. An organism suffering a high mortality rate tends to become
stronger to match its environment. If the organism is better than required, evolution will degrade it, again
matching the organism with the environment. A comfortable organism has a lower death rate and so does
not weed out detrimental characteristics as quickly. The result is a gradual degradation of function until
the comfort is removed.
Now back to the pike and the martin, with that in mind:
If the pike is successful in his environment, he will not develop any further intelligence. He does not need it. It
would be of no value to him. If the environment becomes harsher, he will either develop offsetting ability or
perish. Still, what is the most likely change? He already knows how to hunt. He does not have a hand to hold a
weapon and has no need to understand Shakespeare. Bigger teeth, a sleeker body for speed, or a quicker reaction
time would solve his problem far better and quicker than a higher IQ. Look at a pike. He has been gaining those
features for millions of years. Pound for pound there is not a better killing machine on earth (well, maybe with
man as an exception).
The martin is in the same fix. He is born flying. It does not take long, even with a low IQ, to learn how to fly
with your mouth open and scoop up insects. Only if his environment changed would he need to learn something
Human Evolution
new. Perhaps a more agile flying style, a different territory, a bigger mouth, or more broods each year would
solve the problem better and quicker than a higher IQ. If he should have a mutation that gave him a higher IQ,
what would be the value? What would he use it for? If the new-found intelligence is not required, it would not
last long. Evolution quickly removes unused features. Most animals fit this pattern.
Why did man develop the large brain? Why did the other primates not do so? The answer, of course is in his
particular environment, how well he matched it, and what the evolutionary alternatives were. His upright posture
was both a blessing and a curse. He found himself standing upright on the ground. He could not outrun or outfight his predators. It would take massive changes in his physical structure to improve the situation. Evolution
usually works in an incremental fashion. Mutations occurred to his entire body and brain. Small changes to his
body did bring about some physical changes. He developed stronger and better shaped eating tools. Still, his
biggest problem was the predators, big fast cats and the men in the next tribe. Incremental physical changes did
not help that problem one whit. Yet every time the brain grew incrementally (mutations that affected brain size),
good things happened. He not only was able to handle his predator problem better, but his cultural life improved.
With the free arms and hands to carry things and to handle weapons, his lot improved with each brain size
increase.
Another factor in evolution may have been brought into play. It is rare but when it occurs it multiplies the effect
of evolution. It works in both a negative and a positive way, and aids the organism in its balance with its
environment, in either case. If mutations in a critical area in the DNA causes organism distress, natural selection
will eliminate the mutation each time it happens (through death and misery). A mutation may occur which
protects the organism from mutations in that critical area. This new mutation will prosper in the gene pool. This
is a case where one mutation eliminates or reduces the recurrence of another unfavorable mutation before it
happens. Its result is very favorable to the organism.
The reverse of that action is also beneficial. If a mutation in a particular area is favorable (say, one that causes an
increase in brain size), natural selection will allow that mutation to remain in the gene pool each time it occurs, if
it is needed and utilized. The brain will grow incrementally each time the mutation happens. Since mutations are
rare and random, brain growth would be quite slow even if greatly needed. Nevertheless, if a mutation occurred
which encouraged such mutations so that they would happen more often, the rate of brain growth would be
accelerated. This could explain the more rapid brain growth starting at the juncture of africanus and habilis.
Still, the coding of an accelerator mutation is itself subject to mutation. If brain-power was really making a
difference then, then this new mutation would be detrimental and be quickly eliminated. Yet if the organism was
comfortable, the accelerator would soon disappear from the gene pool since it would not affect survivability. The
latter probably happened about 100,000 years ago when the human population started expanding rapidly
(showing ability greater than needed). An expanding population is a good measure of organism comfort.
Detrimental mutations will accumulate in the gene pool at such times, and favorable characteristics will be
degraded.
Evolution, through the liberal application of death and hardship, had built a strong body and a sound mind by the
time of the appearance of Homo sapiens sapiens. Both were designed for entirely different environments than
experienced by man today. We live longer today for three reasons. One is our health care and diet. The second is
that our bodies were constructed to last thirty years under brutally harsh conditions. Removal of those harsh
conditions allows a longer life span. Third is our culture. We cheat evolution of the deaths that it needs to cleanse
the gene pool. In the short run we will live longer. Eventually mutations will erase these benefits. Evolution
seeks to have us hanging over the edge.
Human Evolution
In modern society, survivability is no longer dependent on the condition of the mind. In fact, the more successful
tend to have fewer children. Mutations that distort the function or size of the brain are no longer removed by
natural selection from the gene pool. The enormous size of the population slows the spread of adverse mutations
across the gene pool, but if no one dies of their adverse effects before he has his offspring, alleles from adverse
mutations will accumulate.
TOP
The Evolution of the Brain

Any mutation must be applied to a DNA coding that already exists. It can not be applied to coding that does not
exist. Is this a silly statement? Not at all. It leads to the way that evolution changes an organism. Mutations are
always applied to the existing DNA coding. Evolution makes something new out of something that already
exists. If a bear becomes distressed in a given environment, it does not sprout wings and fly. Instead, such things
as longer legs or claws will be tested. Also, evolution often does not fix the thing that causes a problem, it
patches the problem by doing something unrelated. If an organism suffers a mutation that shortens its life so that
it has difficulty rearing its children to childbearing age, that mutation will start being culled from the gene pool.
Before that mutation has been completely removed from the gene pool, another mutation may occur which
shortens the gestation period or child development period. If this shortens the child caring requirements enough
so that the shortened life is no longer a problem, then both mutations would be acceptable as permanent residents
in the gene pool.
One must remember that every cell in the human body can perform any function. Two copies of the entire
genome are in every cell. A cell that is in the liver chooses to do that function. The cells in bone or in the brain
choose to do those functions. When a mutation happens, it is either to the inner function of a cell, or to the size
and shape of the overall cell structure (such as a skull, heart, etc.).
The brain did not start with man, there were many examples of single cells that had simple versions billions of
years before the first hominid appeared. Photosynthesis requires light. If a cell that depended on light drifted too
low in the water or drifted under a land overhang that obscured the sun, it was in deep trouble. Some developed a
light sensor and a method of swimming. For the system to work, they developed a central control system that
would judge the amount of light and if it was insufficient would turn the cell toward the light source and swim in
that direction. It would keep swimming until it was bathed with sufficient light. This was all done within a single
cell organism. That early cell had memory (what am I supposed to do?), and reason (which way do I swim?).
Early animals developed cells that connected their various muscles to the central control area. Commands from
the brain drive the muscles through these nerve cells. Every cell in an organism carries all of the information in
its DNA for the entire organism. Each cell is a universal cell and can provide any service in the body of the
organism. Evolution constructed the nerve cell from the standard cell. It also constructed nerve cells that connect
the various sensors (ears, eyes, nose, skin) to the central control area. These nerve cells carried sensor
Human Evolution
information to the brain. Further cell adaptations in the central control area provided functional links. If the ears
hear a loud bang then tell the leg muscles to jump the other way. If the stomach says it is hungry, go bite
something. We refer to these permanent fixed processes as instincts. Still, the DNA cannot foresee all possible
contingencies. It must allow some leeway. No animal is totally instinctive. All animals have some memory, some
reasoning ability, and some decision making ability. We differ only in degree. The first hominid had all of the
neural elements that we have today, as do the chimp and your pet poodle. The mutations that built our brain from
that first hominid were more about quantity, shape, and organization than in substance.
The thing we must remember is that africanus had a 450cc brain. We now have a 1350cc brain. That
africanus brain is still in there. Evolution patches over. It does not do housecleaning. Another thing to
remember is that evolution has a zero IQ. It was not being intelligent when it formed the rest of our brain.
It was much more interested in the sex life of our DNA.
Even that is not the whole story. Africanus was largely instinctive. Most of the add-ons to his brain have been
intellectual. Those original instincts were strong and uniform. Evolution saw to that. His world was brutally
uniform and required full time participation. Any deviant individual behavior would affect the birthrate.
Evolution would not tolerate it. His instincts were well maintained.
Intelligence is always at odds with instinct. If the instinct provided proper survival action, there would be no
need for intelligence. Indeed this is the case with all of the other animals. There are literally thousands of species
that survive quite well with little intellectual ability. Intelligence is supposed to override instinct to provide
action that is more suitable. That is why we got it in the first place. By controlling our instincts we could provide
action that enhanced our survivability. A little self-discipline provided great survival dividends, and it worked.
Man has conquered the world. He is the fat cat. He is on top of the heap. Yet now, peak intellectual performance
and self-discipline are no longer requirements for survival. Man has become self-indulgent and has reverted to
satisfying his instincts.
That is why today we act like africanus though we have a 1350cc brain. Africanus would object loudly to that
statement, because that statement is not quite true. We would not live an hour in his environment. We have
reverted to his instincts, that is true, but those instincts are now perverted. Through discipline, man substituted
intelligence for instinct over a long period. During that time the instincts suffered mutations. Since both the
original instincts and their mutations were being overridden by intelligence, the instinct mutations were not
considered detrimental by evolution and so accumulated in the gene pool.
We have now reverted to a set of perverted instincts and now cater to those perversions by calling them
normal. We excuse behavior now that would horrify africanus.
TOP
Conclusions
Human Evolution
CONCLUSION 1. The mechanism for reasoning is instinctive (mechanical, fix-wired, genetically

determined in function).
Argument:
The consideration of alternative actions and the selection of the most appropriate is not unique to man. Memory
is not unique to man. Learned elements of culture (behavior) are not unique to man. All of these exist to some
degree in most animals. What man calls intelligence is actually an extension of memory, some portions
specialized, to a tried and proven reasoning mechanism, one shared with many other animals. This additional
memory allowed complex parameters and algorithms to be brought into the analysis and decision function. The
uniqueness in modern man's intellectual powers lies in his ability to multiply the effect of his intellect through
external memory and communications.
A normal brain, a gift of millions of years of evolution, is able to learn complex reasoning processes.
Degenerative genetic mutations to this reasoning mechanism are not subject to correction through training.
.
CONCLUSION 2: The mark of evolutionary success in a given set of hominid genes, is to become a
grandparent.
Argument:
Only if the hominid result of a given genome configuration lives long enough to care for and help its offspring
until they can bear young, will that set of genes be considered for a place in the gene pool. If there are no
offspring, the gene set is a failure from the standpoint of evolution. If there are offspring but they do not have
offspring, then the gene set is an evolutionary failure.
.
CONCLUSION 3: Man is not an intelligent being. He is, instead, an instinctive being with intelligence.
Argument:
It is obvious from the nature of evolution and man's evolutionary history that what man terms intelligence was an
add-on to an instinctive creature. This new factor improved man's ability to survive to become a grandparent by
providing a wider choice in behavior and adding intellectual control over his instincts. Modern man, as was his
ancestors, is driven by his instincts. He has, if he chooses to use it, intellectual control over his behavior. In
ancient times the environment forced him to exercise this self-discipline. It was the thoughtful action that
allowed him to survive.
Ancient man's instincts were his reason for living. His reasoning allowed him to live.
The removal of the dangers of environment from modern man (by his own inventiveness and direction) has
resulted in two destructive forces, either of which alone will destroy the species: 1. The halting of gene pool
Human Evolution
cleansing by the environment results in species degeneration in mind and body to eventual species collapse, and
2. The discarding of self-discipline as a way of life, which in time will degenerate man's culture (behavior) to the
point of behavioral chaos.
.
CONCLUSION 4: Since the beginning of man, the female and the male have had differing roles.
Argument:
Dimorphism, one sex smaller than the other, is an indication of differing roles. In animals where the role is the
same, the size is usually the same. The larger and stronger hominid male bore the rigors of the defense of the
tribe. The smaller female bore her children and maintained the camp. During the period of the hunter-gatherer
(essentially the last two million years) the male was the provider, the female was the family care giver. Since
these factors are no longer a requirement for evolutionary survival, mutations are equalizing the sexes (equal
degeneration), the males are becoming more feminine and the females more masculine.
.
CONCLUSION 5: The human female dictates the sexual activity.
Argument:
The hominid female is the only one in the animal kingdom who has hidden her fertile time so completely that
even she is not aware of when it is. Raising a human child is a long term process. In primitive times, too many
children caused a too high death rate. Other animal females attract males when in season. The human female
needed to control the spacing and number of her children. The lack of physical sexual signs required the male to
always be ready in case he would be allowed. This allowed the female full intellectual control of her sexual
activity. She used sex to bond the male to her so she could depend on his help. If he should be killed or crippled,
she used it to attract a new help-mate.
A largely monogamous society is required for the survival of the human child, if the environment is severe. Not
so in cases where food is plentiful. It appears doomed in modern society, even though there are benefits
exceeding the need to survive.
.
CONCLUSION 6: Man is and always has been a tribal animal.
Argument:
Forming a cooperative tribe was essential four million years ago. The hominid was not intellectual at that time.
The formation of the tribe was the result of genetic modification. It was and is instinctive. Hunter-gatherer
societies are tribal. These hominid societies began two million years ago. After four million years of tribal living,
it is safe to assume that all mankind is tribal by instinct.
Human Evolution
TOP
Darwin vs Intelligent Design.
Darwin and Intelligent Design

Charles Darwin (1809-1882) is remembered for his theory of evolution. Much controversy surrounds Darwin's
theory. Questions abound. Is evolution a four billion year old process, creating life forms primarily at random
but each shaped by an ever-changing and complex environment, that has resulted in all of the wondrous life
forms that surround us? Or are all of those beautiful elements of our nature, along with the vastness and
majesty of the entire universe, a creation of an intellect of vast intelligence and empathy, one far greater than
anyone can imagine? Questions are being asked. Did man really evolve from an ape? Or, is it that both man
and ape are, along with all of the other flora and fauna, creations of a giant intellect that first perceived an
unfathomable spiritual need and created all time, mass, space, light, and life as it is today directly from His
thought, and only a few thousand years ago?
Or could it be that these two concepts, though seemingly worlds apart, are merely two different sides of the
same coin? Could it be possible that the theory of evolution is not a denial of God, but a description of how
God created a system that in turn produced the miracle of life and all of its manifestations? Some say that a
belief in evolution will lead to a destruction of rules of moral behavior resulting in a destruction of human
culture. But a close look at evolution shows instead a need for a system of personal behavior (ethics, morality)
for mankind that is far more strict than any religion, a need so great that if not heeded and soon, the human
will be quite likely to quickly become extinct.
To begin with, the sum total of Darwin's theory is considered by the public to be "man descended from the
ape" and it is so judged in religious arguments. The fact is that in attempting to judge his theory for religious
analysis purposes, they do not consider the vast scientific progress in genetics since Darwin's time. Judging
evolution on the basis of the "the man evolved from the ape" is much like evaluating the Sahara Desert on the
basis of a grain of sand or judging a large city by looking at a city limits sign at the edge of town.
It was not a new idea with Darwin, that species developed from other species based on competitive survival
within the stresses of an environment, but it was Darwin, after a lifetime of study and thought, who wrote the
"Origin of the Species" and presented his theoretical argument to the public. At an early age he was able to
study the Galapagos Islands, a small and isolated ecosystem, and the life-forms that existed there. He had
quickly realized that if evolution as a theory could exist as truth, it would be evident here. His study there was
done with that in mind - and a biased study will usually produce a biased and therefore often erroneous result.
His theory, then, was based almost entirely on evidence obtained by observation during a short study of a tiny
island fragment of the earth that was quite young from a geological standpoint. It was a very limited study of
very limited scope of the condition of life on a partially isolated set of very small islands that had existed only
a very short time (geologically speaking). Any intelligent person knows that it is dangerous to extrapolate
from the specific to the general. Because one may see the moon rise shortly after sunset on a particular night,
it is foolish to believe and then try to convince everyone else in the world to also believe that it will do so at
the same time every night, everywhere in the world and forever. Yet that is exactly what Darwin claimed.
Darwin's theory, some say and perhaps rightly so, is a flimsy description of a hole-ridden idea full of
inconsistences, guesswork and opinion. Fossils offered in evidence have doubtful application and may be
explained in other ways that are as plausible as those offered in favor of evolution. Scientists admit that fossil
dating is at best only approximate and they even disagree among themselves in determining where a particular
file:///C|/onelifebook/evolve/darwin.html (1 of 5)1/25/2007 4:50:53 PM
fossil fits in the evolutionary chain. Is a particular specimen an early form of man? Or is it another form of life
that was created and then fell by the wayside? Or is it an example of a very disease ridden and distorted
skeleton from some hapless ancestor of ours?
It is apparent that there are other issues at stake, issues of great importance that must be considered. For all of
the time in man's history, his behavior has depended to a large extent on his culture and his culture has been
based largely on religious concepts. Human behavior was determined by these religious concepts. People were
judged using religious concepts as a basis. If those religious concepts were not true, then the entire culture
could collapse. People feared the consequences when something was discovered, or thought to be discovered,
that appeared to be contrary to religious thinking and dogma.
But one must realize, even with these objections raised, they have no connection with the truth of the theory.
But the implications are vast. The integrity of a number of religions could become suspect. And the cultures
based on these religions could be shaken to the core. If accepted, would a culture shock result? Would
mankind be better off without such knowledge even if it is true? Or would cultural chaos be the product of
such knowledge? Still, as humans, creatures that are intellectual and disciplined, not ones that react through
instinct alone, we must know the truth and face its consequences by basing our actions on truth. The lid to
Pandora's box (in this case filled with the facts of evolution and its consequences) is open and its contents are
scattered to the winds, never to be ignored again. So, the human must look deeper to find truth, one way or the
other. It is the nature of mankind.
To properly view the current disagreement between those who do and do not accept Darwin, and to establish a
method for approaching a solution to such an argument, it would be wise to look at similar arguments in the
past. There have been many but we will only look at two of those for background.
The Spherical Earth Theory

Ancient Egyptians had long known the earth was round. By stationing several observers along a long
(hundreds of miles) measured north-south path in the Nile valley, all observing the angle to the sun at high
noon on the same day, they were able to determine that the earth was not only not flat but had a curved
surface, one that if logically extended would also measure the circumference of the earth.
Aristotle (about 350BC) noted the shape of the earth by observing its shadow on the face of the moon during a
lunar eclipse. But the Christian church held firm in its belief that the earth was flat. Not only did they hold that
it was flat, they judged as criminal all who held a different view. Almost 1500 years after Aristotle, they jailed
Roger Bacon (1214-1294) for 10 years for his views about the spherical earth. The Catholic Encyclopedia of
the period lists about Roger Bacon, "He was an author full of heresies and suspected views." The Christian
church held the flat earth views into the 16th century AD and no one dared dispute it.
But the telescope had been invented and was becoming common. It became increasingly apparent that either
the sky was a gross fabrication by a perverse deity else the earth was spherical. It was not long before no
reasonable person believed in the flat earth notion although a definitive proof was yet to be available. Along
came Isaac Newton (1643-1727) who provided the mathematical mechanism and physical reasoning to put the
last nail in the flat earth coffin. Only the very ignorant or the very stupid believed a flat earth after Newton's
work.
It was then found that scientifically determined fact was not detrimental to the church after all.
A description of how God did something is not a denial of God.
The Heliocentric Theory

Did the sun circle the earth? Or was it the earth that circled the sun? The church was adamant! The earth was
fixed and if any circling was done it was done by everything else - and the bible seemed to back their position
(King James version):
1 Chronicles 16:30: The world is also established, that it can not be moved.
Psalm 93:1: Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...
The idea that the earth circled the sun, not the reverse, first appeared in the western world with early
philosophers Pythagoras, Philolaus and Aristarchus. It lay dormant for many centuries. It first intruded on
religious theory in Europe with works from Nicholas Copernicus about 1500 AD. Still it lacked authority
being based on observations that did not constitute proof. Gallileo Galilei (1564-1642), an early worker with
the telescope, became public with his observations and theories. The Catholic church threatened him with
excommunication and a possible trip to the church dungeons for a lesson in torture. He was forced to publicly
testify that his findings had been given to him by the devil in order to cause God and the church trouble. He
lived in poverty and disgrace the remainder of his life.
A rewrite of Psalm 93:1 could well bring known scientific knowledge into harmony. Doing so would have
been gibberish to the people of that time, however, and would have been detrimental to the growth of the
church. For example, Psalm 93:1 could well have been:
The new Psalm 93:1: He created a vast universe consisting of time, space, matter and energy where all of
these dimensions of reality are relative in order to provide an unlimited environmental opportunity in which
His people and all other forms of life could grow. He created earth as a birth habitat for life and then provided
a life generating mechanism that would allow all living things to be spontaneously created according to His
plan. He hast fixed the earth immovable and firm within this magnificent structure.
Nevertheless, even though the proper Psalm 93:1 exists unchanged, it has been found that scientifically
determined fact was not detrimental to the church after all.
A description of how God did something is not a denial of God.
Intelligent Design
So the current disagreement between church and science surrounds Darwin and his theory. The same thing
that has happened before is now happening again. Bitter words fly back and forth while the scientist is busy in
the laboratories making measurement after measurement and the politician is making hay for himself with the
controversy.
To believe that the human is an intelligent design is turning a blind eye to the very basic religious beliefs that
man is imperfect and therefore needs religion to guide him through life. Using the views of the religion is it
not more proper to realize that man is a work in progress, in the process of evolution where evolution is the
process designed by God that is capable of producing perfection? And that man still needs a lot of
development? Doesn't evolution describe that need? Doesn't it provide for a perfection that has not been
realized? Shouldn't we consider the real facts that can be proven through observation and practice to be true?
Isn't it wrong to reject measurable and provable fact merely from an uninformed and reactionary stance? Did
He endow us with reason only to confuse us?
The fact is that the human is an outstanding example of a very poor design. The study of our DNA is in its
infancy yet more than 15000 known defects that cause untold misery, insanity and even death have been
cataloged. It is a creature that walks upright but has the spine and sinus design of a creature that walks on all
fours, resulting in much human misery especially with age. It was designed with the ability to be logical then
blessed with a set of instincts working in adverse directions. It spends much of its time and assets in killing
each other. It robs, rapes and murders. A peaceful country requires armies to protect itself. A large percentage
of the population must be locked away in jails to protect the welfare of the rest. A large portion of our civil
expenditures provide for lawyers, judges and police. Some will murder their own unborn babies. Others will
do the same immediately after birth (so-called crib death???). They tend to believe in superstitions and
religions that are extremely destructive in some cases and counter productive in others. They build huge
monuments to themselves. They teach peace and wage war (Moslems, Nazis, etc.). Even the Christian church
once waged war, tortured unbelievers and took slaves. Both sexes waste a sizable portion of their time and
assets in the hope of enticing illicit sex. Abortion, lipstick, and condoms are all big businesses. The most
advertised medications on television are aphrodisiacs. The modern human raises its young in schools that
teach emancipation from personal discipline and relieves them from responsibility by excusing their actions.
Then we provide television for their recreation loaded with every imaginable social ill for entertainment. The
parents then abandon the child except for transportation between the school and the television sets.
This creature is hardly the design of a vast and superior intelligence - unless, of course, one should believe
that the construction of His design is still in progress using a process which we call evolution.
The Darwin Theory

Some people tend to see (perhaps deliberately) only a small part of Darwin's Theory and then ignore the rest.
That portion is "man descended from the ape", which of course he didn't say at all in the first place. That
phrase when spoken alone tends to upset people and make them defensive. That's why some people tend to
keep repeating it over and over, often in a strident voice. Darwin did surmise that man and ape came from a
common ancestor. This is an entirely different concept - since he could have used an earthworm instead and
been as truthful. In fact the human and a grain of wheat share about 27% of the same DNA structure - the
earthworm far more. To make things worse the modern human is characterized by its belief that the sum total
of life can be summarized into a bumper sticker making all other knowledge irrelevant.
But then one does not need the Darwin Theory or all of the scientific work done on genetics since Darwin or
even an understanding of DNA to understand evolution. Ignore the fossil record! It can never give more than a
fragmented record. One need look at only a few facts that are easily verifiable:
1. All of the elements of the earth may be divided into two classes: inanimate things and living things.
2. The dividing line between those two classes are that living things can reproduce themselves and
inanimate things can not. Reproduction itself is the engine of evolution.
3. When living things reproduce, they usually do not reproduce perfectly. There will be differences
between them and their siblings and parents. Look at two oak trees or two pups from the same litter as
compared to each other and to their parents. This is called divergence.
4. If the difference from the parent is so great that it causes the new living thing to die before it
5.
6.
7.
8.
reproduces then its lifeline will cease to exist. Its divergence was excessive and the result to that
lifeline was fatal.
If the difference between parent and child is so small that the child may survive as its parent did, then
the lifeline carried between its parent through itself and to its offspring has lived through another test
between its lifeline and the trials and tribulations of living. The physical characteristics of the lifeline
are changing with each reproduction but the lifeline is remaining equipped as well as or better than is
required to survive.
Repeat steps 3 , 4 and 5 many billions of times across the earth each year for more than four billion
years. Those three steps are called 'evolution'. Imagine the countless directions in form and behavior
that would result.
Look around you for the results. Verify this process through your own observation.
Is this all there is to evolution? Of course not. Is this the end of the problem between religion and
science? Of course not. In fact the real problem is only starting. What will the rift be, if this battle is
allowed to continue, when biological computers are built, ones that can grow, heal themselves,
reproduce and think? And how about nanotechnology with its use of biological material embedded in
the human body? And what will the reaction be when biological functions specified in the human DNA
are added to, subtracted from and modified to enhance health, demeanor, beauty and ability? And when
entirely new life forms are created for specific purposes? Or extinct life forms are resurrected for study
or display? And medicine is completely changed from disease diagnosis and medicine to one of
modifying the DNA to avoid the disease in the first place. Will the result be human? Or will it be a
completely new species?
Where did that first living fragment come from, some 4 billion or more years ago? Scientists will call its
chance occurrence a singularity, an event with a near zero probability. Religious people could call that a
miracle if they wish to do so, an event with zero probability. The difference between these two concepts is
itself near zero. To argue over this difference is foolish.
The Human Brain
The Human Brain

Human behavior comes from the human brain. This text seeks further definition of man, that portion of
man which resides in his brain. It uses prior information found in separate texts on genetics, evolution and
developmental history, to further understand the current physical structure of the human neural system.
The overall goal of this text, along with others in the series, is to provide a basis in fact of the nature of
man for use in developing those social studies (education, psychology, sociology, etc.) so necessary for the
formation and maintenance of culture. The basis now used for these study areas is erroneous and the
development of these social studies is now pure conjecture and imagination. This following study of the
brain is confined to those features of the brain which determine or contribute to human behavior.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
CONCLUSIONS
THE NEURAL SYSTEM BEFORE MAN
EXPLORATION METHODS
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE BRAIN
A CASE OF COOPERATION
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NERVOUS SYSTEM
OBTAINING INFORMATION ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT
PROVIDING FUNCTION
DIRECTION AND DRIVE: THE CONFLICT OF LIFE
EDUCATING AND TRAINING THE HUMAN
REFERENCES
Summary of Findings
During the development of the human neural system, there were six eras of improvement in function:
1. The direct reaction to a sensor signal. This earliest development of a neural system was a simple but
fast functional response to the stimulation of a sensor. A given sensor signal resulted in a given fixed
action. A pure example of this early neural process is still observable in some single-cell animals using
photo-synthesis which will sense the direction of light and swim toward it. Man has many of these
reactive neural elements, from the blink of an eye (a physical movement), to apprehension of the dark (a
decision coloration).
2. The instinctive response to an inherited pattern which is associated with danger or food. A sensor
observes the environment and compares the received sensor pattern with an inherited pattern. A current
example exists in some nesting birds. Wave a cutout in the shape of a hawk over the nest and the chick
will cringe. Wave a cutout corresponding to the parent's outline and it will make a noise and open its
mouth for food. Although superseded (and largely diminished or perverted by mutations as a result of
file:///C|/onelifebook/evolve/brain.html (1 of 18)1/25/2007 4:50:55 PM
The Human Brain
disuse), many still occur in man in the form of anxieties: sleeplessness during full moon comes from an
inherited fear of danger from predators on such nights. Fear of height refers to the arboreal phase of man's
ancestry. Claustrophobia (once an aid to survival) developed when confined in dark caves along with
possible predators. Racial bigotry came from millions of years of militant tribal relationships, where any
difference in personal appearance signaled danger.
3. The development of sensory memory and comparison. The fixed danger or need pattern was largely
replaced in the higher animals by sensor memory and comparison. Remembered sensor experiences, all
properly graded with descriptions of associated fear, hunger or lust, are constantly compared with the
sensor's current view of the environment. Highly developed in man, it is more limited in the other higher
species. This memory is not limited to experiences within the environment. It is here that the animal may
be trained. This entire process is instinctive (programmed in neural circuitry). We refer to it as 'intuition'
and it is highly successful in the day to day living experience. It is the most used thought process in man
by far, most humans rarely use any other process. We learn to drive a car, prepare our food, speak a
language, and follow the customs of our culture, using this intuitive process. This is an instinctive
(intuitive, fixed process, neural signal reconciliation and conflict resolution, state function) process, not an
intelligent one. It is so refined in man that it appears to him to be intelligent. It is not.
4. The ability to imagine, to mentally construct sensor patterns, remember them, and then use them as if
they were real in the value summation neural circuits, provides a creativity element in the instinctive
value summation process. Observable in the other higher animals, it is most prevalent in predators under
great food stress. They will develop intricate hunting scenarios. If unsuccessful, they will as quickly
develop new ones.
5. Conscious thought, an awareness of identity, a feeling of personal management, is a relative newcomer,
and probably (not at all certain) is more developed in man than in the other higher animals. It grew from
the ability to imagine, to create experiences in the sensor memories. First, imagine a scene. Now, imagine
that you are in charge, that you understand. That you need to do something with it. Now imagine the
solution. The power this factor added to the intuitive process is incredible. Man, at least he thinks so, now
had the power to stand back and look at himself and the cosmos. Man now had the power to become
objective. Not that he ever wanted to, mind you, but it was now possible.
6. Then, quite recently, modern man discovered intelligent thought, a rigid methodology and a mostly
painful process. Totally unsung, it came from the artisans (not the philosophers), while seeking repeatable
methods to build dependable products. It required the learning and application of provable knowledge and
a rejection of that which could not be proven. The engineer was born, vilified by the intellectual from the
beginning. The intelligent thought process is not entertaining, like art, music, sports, literature and
philosophy, and it isn't easy or fun. It requires a measurable and provable basis, thereby utterly destroying
a lot of beautiful and imaginative thought. It requires a careful single logical step at a time, a seemingly
terrible waste of a soaring and creative mind. It requires physical verification at every logic step, a terribly
boring and rote procedure. And it takes a terrible amount of knowledge preparation. But it produces real
and measurable results. And if something is really important, such as developing safe air flight, it is
always used, indeed it is demanded. The education of our children, long an intellectual toy, must someday
join the list of 'important' things that deserve the same treatment. The uncontrolled application of
imagination and conjecture to an intangible basis, such as now exists in our modern social studies,
is the direct inverse of intelligence and can only breed mischief.
All of these neural processes are interwoven in the human mind in various portions. They are used
simultaneously, and the divisions between them are invisible to us. We never really know which element
prevailed in our decision. If we are in our day-to-day mode, we operate entirely intuitively (instinctively). If we
want to lean back and look at things, we are in our 'awareness' (subjective) mode. It is only when we set our
The Human Brain
conscious minds to it, and rigidly adhere to the process, that we are 'intelligent'. Being 'intelligent' is not an 'easy'
process, nor is it fun. It requires effort to learn and rigid self-control to use. But, it is productive.
TOP
Conclusions
Man is not, by nature (without special training), a logical (reasoning, intelligent) creature. He is, instead, totally
reactive (instinctive, intuitive). His behavior is determined entirely by the interaction (conflict resolution,
competition, cooperation, coordination) between his various instincts (genetically determined neural mechanisms
provided by evolution for behavioral guidance). There is no mechanism for intelligence or memory which is
separate from sensory, motor and instinct mechanisms. Man may be trained (his behavior may be controlled by
edict). He may be educated (he may be taught knowledge for use as raw material in his decision making). The
untrained and uneducated human is totally instinctive and not capable of objective reasoning or proper cultural
behavior under modern social environments. The self-disciplined and educated (if educated in real knowledge)
human is fully capable of both. The human has been provided by evolution with instincts (genetically specified
neural mechanisms) which causes him to seek both training and education (he is a competitive social animal). He
is quite capable of logic, reason, and intelligence when he chooses to be so, provided that he learns and follows
the necessary discipline and rigid methodology. Even then, however, he is instinctive in his goals (the need for
and the application of the reasoning). His instincts provide the direction, drive and power behind his every
action.
Man is, therefore, capable of being superior to any intelligent mechanism or creature, since he is not limited to
functioning only with logic, reason and intelligence, thus allowing unlimited mental creativity and exploration.
He has no mental limitation in scope, other than in his self-control over his instincts. Conversely, he is also
capable of being an absolute idiot, the more usual case since he is not normally either trained or educated in
intelligent thought (solid provable premises, careful logic steps, frequent verification by measurement, the refusal
to consider intuition, imagination and conjecture in other than theoretical and inventive pursuits).
Unfortunately, man believes that he is naturally intelligent and that he acts intelligently at all times. He does not
recognize that all of his social interaction is instinct (intuition) driven. Nor does he recognize that many of his
instincts are archaic and only partially applicable. Nor does he recognize that whereas logic and reason would
always result in uniform behavioral action, the normal (due to mutations) divergence in instincts across the gene
pool of the human, will always produce divergent answers for the same behavioral questions. Where his
genetically provided behavioral tendencies (instincts) fit the particular social problem, he functions well, but
since he is unable to sense the dividing line between his instinctive (intuition, reactive decision summation) and
logical reasoning, he usually substitutes intuition, imagination and conjecture for logic, reason, and intelligence.
Then he swears to its authenticity by virtue of his 'intelligence'. Mankind thus constructs entire fields of study in
social interaction (psychology, philosophy, sociology, educational philosophy, political and social 'science', etc.)
on false and self-serving premises and follows with faulty logical development which is rarely if ever verified,
The Human Brain
and thereby rarely true.

Also, and just as unfortunate, human instincts date from times of great stress and so are primarily aimed at
surviving under that ancient environment. Having overcome most of this environmental stress through the
invention of shelter, clothing, food production and medicine, many of these instincts have become detrimental.
Others are time-consuming and without social value.
TOP
The Neural System Before Man

Early life, some 3.5 billion years ago, consisted of single living cells. A single cell is a very complex assembly of
biological material engaged in complex chemical processes. Single cell life developed, through the process of
evolution, over a period of billions of years. See The Evolution of the Cell for more detail on cell development.
The evolution of man from the single cell is far less a magnificent process than was the development of the cell
itself. The development of man required, once the cell was established and began forming cooperatives, about
680 million years. The development of the cell itself required about 3 billion prior years.
The first multicellular animals began appearing about 680 million years ago. These were living creatures
composed of cooperating cells. All of the higher animals, including man, developed from these. Note the process
from the simple to the complex. Note the development, first of collecting individual biological processes into a
single cell, then the construction of creatures from multiple uses of the cell. One by one the biological processes
were assembled in the cell, then one by one the characteristics of all modern life were built from multiple cells.
The human brain was developed through a similar process, from the simple to the complex, along with the
evolution of the human. The human body is composed of many billions of cells, working in harmony. The
modern human nervous system is composed of about 100 billion neural functioning cells, supported by perhaps
10 times that many more.
As man evolved, mutations occurred in the nervous system, causing it to evolve along with the body. Those
mutations were tested against the environment in the same manner as mutations involving outward physical
changes. As ancient ancestors of man gained new and improved sensors, in order to survive, the neural control of
those sensory enhancements developed alongside. As survival required more complex actions and reactions of
the overall organism, those also developed in the form of neural circuitry along with and often a part of the
sensory enhancement circuitry. See The Evolution of Man for more detail on man's development.
The first thing to realize about the brain is that, unlike an organ such as the heart or liver, it is not a single organ
with a single function. It is instead an organ of many thousands of interlocking functions. These micro-functions
developed along the same game plan as the body itself. If features were not successful, they were discarded. As
The Human Brain
features were found to enhance survival, they became permanent residents. The human body is a giant
cooperative consisting of billions of cooperating cells. The human nervous system, likewise, is constructed of
many thousands of cooperating functions. This is to be expected, since both were developed by the same process,
and that development would of necessity be of the same kind and within the same time frame.
The idea that suddenly something entirely new, a wonderful new intelligent mechanism, appeared only in the
lineage of man, has no basis. Other than in proportions of the various parts, the brains of all of the higher animals
are the same in construction.
TOP
Exploration Methods
The function of the brain was not understood as recently as two hundred years ago. Many thought at that time it
was some sort of pump which helped the heart circulate the blood. Our current understanding of the brain is
based on the following study methods:
Determination of the structure of the brain through dissection: This dissection extends to microscopically
thin slices. All of the elements of the brain structure have been isolated and named. This is the oldest
direct study method.
Observation of the functioning brain: Using techniques such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging, the brain
may be observed while the subject performs various functions. This is the most recent form of study. The
active portion of the brain during any particular function will require more blood and so shows up on the
scan. While talking, for example, the Broca's area on the left frontal lobe shows activity. While readingaloud, the Broca's area (speech function) and the occipital lobe in both hemispheres (seeing function) will
show activity. While moving the right foot, a particular area in the parietal area of the left hemisphere will
show activity. There is, at present, an ongoing concerted coordinated effort among academics to map the
functioning areas of the entire brain.
Cataloging the functional effects of brain trauma: Brain damage from automobile accidents and strokes is
quite common. By carefully noting the effects of damage then performing post-mortem examinations
later, the relationship between regional damage and resulting neural performance offers good physical
correlation. This is probably the largest source of correlative (function vs location) data available.
As presented here, the study of genetics and evolution combined with the data from the above studies
offers great insight into the construction of the human neural system. For example: The eyes developed
slowly over time. The neural system which supports (1) eye control and movement, (2) care (blinking),
(3) scene storage (memory) and recall, (4) scene analysis, (5) imaginative scene construction, and (6)
functional judgment of scene elements, all developed along with the eye. The neural systems for all of the
other senses developed in the same manner, as did those for all other functioning parts such as legs, arms,
etc. The brain is then the accumulation of all of these systems into one coordinated whole.
Comparative behavioral studies of modern man, primitive man, and other higher organisms can supply
The Human Brain
supporting data and guidance, if carefully used only for that purpose and maintained free of ideological
and political tampering. Current studies are far more 'politically correct' than 'scientific'.
Introspection is the most questionable of all thought processes, but is the prevalent modern opinion source
about the functioning of the mind. This is the way of the philosopher, psychologist, educator and
sociologist. The mind is turned inward to inspect the mind, leading to such utterly stupid statements as :
"Ebonics is a valid language", "Whole language is superior to phonetics for the teaching of reading.", "It
is logically obvious that if a child receives low grades, he will not be able to learn due to his loss of selfesteem." or "Any fool can see that the reason for teen-age births is the low self-esteem of the young
mother." Unfortunately, such intuitive (for some) observations form the basis for all modern education
and, therefore, the social direction of man. Worse still, that education then forms the culture of the next
generation, leading inevitably to a spiral downward of ever increasingly foolish 'knowledge' being taught
to the ever increasingly receptive.
TOP
An Introduction to the Brain

The size of the modern human adult brain is about 1350 cc. It is a spongy mass (and not very pleasing in
appearance). The brain of Ramidus, the walking ape/man of 4.5 million years ago, was about 400 cc. in size, that
of Homo habilis, the first human at about 2 million years ago , was about 575 cc. The largest human brain was in
the Neandertal at about 8% larger than the Homo sapien sapien.
The left side of a human brain is shown. The brain stem is a communications trunk between the brain and the rest
of the body. Two of the five senses which provide current environment information from the outside world (eyes
and ears) are connected directly to the periphery of the brain. Taste, smell and touch come from outside the brain
cage (the upper skull). Each element of each sense has a direct connection to the brain. Each small area on the
body has its own touch sensor. Taste provides about 40,000 individual sensors, the eyes well over two hundred
million. The senses are connected into the brain in parallel. All sensing elements enter the brain at the same time.
There is no time sharing or switching. The eyes are connected in one area, the ears to another, etc.
The Human Brain
The brain consists of many parts, the most conspicuous division being the two hemispheres, which forms the
cortex (outer surface). The cortex is folded to get more surface area. It functions as if it was a flattened surface. It
is at the surface that the cortex brain cell bodies are especially situated, while the internal parts of the cortex carry
the connections between the cells. The division of brain cell bodies and their connections causes the cortex to be
either white matter (connections) or gray matter (active neural cells on the outer surface). See the latter part of
Man, the Digital Machine for more detail on the neural cell mechanism and its functions.
The brain is divided into two hemispheres, the left one is shown. The hemispheres can be divided into lobes,
corresponding roughly with deep fissures: temporal (side), occipital (back), parietal (top), and frontal.
TOP
A Case of Cooperation
Usually it is best to approach a complex problem by way of simple detail first, then the combinations leading to
the complex. The end result of that approach in the study of the brain is so bizarre with respect to the way we
appear to ourselves, that it becomes confusing. If one should be unsuspecting, much is lost in the explanation of
the detail.
The cause of this unusual situation is the manner in which the brain developed. It was not built at one time, nor
as a single object. It is not an entity that one can explain as an entity. Neural decision mechanisms in mobile
complex organisms have been around more than 680 million years. The human developed from one of those
early creatures. Early neural mechanisms were quite simple. Evolution, over time and with much trial and error
experimentation, increased the number of neural components while constantly increasing the complexity of each.
The end result, the human brain, is a cooperative of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of 'mini-brains'. The
cooperative is so much in tune that it appears and functions as one.
The human brain, then, is a cooperative composed of perhaps thousands of individual reactive decision
mechanisms, each with its own memory, interconnection with all others, and judgement. The voting of these
mechanisms is so fast and so in harmony that we perceive the entire system as being the thought of one
mechanism, which, in effect, the overall system becomes.
As we use our minds, it is obvious to us that we are one. There is no hint that we are actually many, in fact a
great many, and that our consciousness (awareness) is the summation (vote) of these entities in the closest
possible cooperation. To gain this concept of more than one contributing to our single consciousness, consider
the partitioning of the brain into hemispheres.
Figure 2:
The Human Brain
Three views of the brain are shown in figure 2. As can be seen, most of the brain is split into two hemispheres,
the left and right, by a deep fissure. In general, the left half of the brain is associated with things on the right side
of the body and the right half is associated with things on the left side of the body. This inversion idea also
extends to sight, where the image processing area on the surface of the occipital lobes is both inverted and
reversed.
Between these two halves and hidden from view, there is a massive communication link, the corpus callosum,
which connects the two, allowing information to pass between. Under normal conditions, anything known by one
side is also known by the other, and as quickly. Our self, then, is composed of two thinking mechanisms, so
totally interconnected that it appears to us to be one. Indeed, it functions as one.
Certain forms of epilepsy do not respond to drug therapy and surgery becomes necessary. One of the surgical
procedures consists of severing a large portion of the corpus callosum, thereby almost completely isolating one
half of the brain from the other. There is an optimum ratio severed. Too much will unduly harm the function of
the patient, whereas, too little will not sufficiently diminish the rate and severity of seizures.
Whereas formerly each side of the brain was kept informed of the happenings to the other by way of the corpus
callosum, they are now partially isolated. Bizarre effects result. Things seen only with the left eye (right
hemisphere) become difficult, if not impossible, to verbalize (the left hemisphere contains the speaking
vocabulary). Things seen with only the right eye are not recognized when viewed again with only the left. It is
now possible for one half of the brain to have experiences and learn things that will never be known by the other.
Adjustments are made quickly. The patient begins to talk a lot. It is a way of overcoming the communication
difficulty introduced by the surgery. When the right eye sees anything, the left side of the brain will verbalize it
(speech center is on left side of the brain). The left ear picks up the verbal symbols (phonemes), then the right
side of the brain knows how to verbalize it also. A new vocal and external communication link is established
between the two sides that partially offsets the internal one that has been partially disabled.
The point is that these two sides of the brain are now separate entities with respect to conscious thought. They
still have common control of the bodily functions and they still think they are one being, but external
communication between the two is now necessary for cooperation.
Before the corpus callosum was severed, the two sides of the brain functioned as an entity. Behavioral decisions
were in perfect and immediate harmony, so harmonious in fact that the division between the two is intellectually
and consciously invisible.
The Human Brain
Keep this in mind, as we turn toward studying the entire nervous system. The idea of separate entities
cooperating so closely that they function as one is a common theme, repeated many times, throughout the brain.
The evolution of the human body was incredible in its complexity. As we study the process we are continually
amazed at the intricacy of its action and the beauty of its final product. As astounding as that process was and its
product is, both are as nothing compared to the evolution of the human neural system and its product. The
awesome complexity and exquisite beauty of the human neural system is staggering.
TOP
The Development of the Nervous System

Fig. 3
Figure 3 shows a primitive nervous system. This system has been around more than a half-billion years and is
still used by many primitive creatures. This is a reactive system, as are all nervous systems. The sensor sees a
condition, such as heat, light or touch, and passes that information directly to a fixed process which converts this
real time information directly into a motor control command. There are single-cell animals, for example, which
live by eating others. They move aimlessly around until they feel that they have bumped into something and then
start chomping away on whatever is next to them. There are others that rely on light to power their photosynthesis energy system. These will sense which direction has the most light and then swim toward it.
This decision module is fixed. It does not learn, it only reacts to the current environment as reported by the
sensor. It is not intelligent. It is, instead, merely reactive. In electronic engineering terms it is a state machine.
With a given set of input information, it produces a certain fixed response. The decision mechanism is not an
intellectual device which manipulates data while judging its end effect, it is a fixed circuit which sums the input
data (some of which may be a summation done separately elsewhere) and delivers a particular action command
for each set of input data. Evolution always builds on existing material. This miniature nervous system set the
pattern for all mobile life, billions of years ago. As life became more complex, more terms (things to be
considered in decision making) were added to this decision matrix. An advanced modern form of mobile life may
have a decision matrix composed of thousands of lessor decision mechanisms, each with hundreds or perhaps
thousands of other terms needed for the decision. As new devices were added (arms, legs, etc.) and new sensors
were added (eyes, ears, nose, etc.) new terms were added into the decision mechanism. The decision matrix is not
a device which is located in one place. It is diffused throughout the brain with major portions located close to
major complex functions.
Note! This form for the behavior controlling device is surmised from observation and study of the evolution
The Human Brain
process. We do not know how the brain works as yet. We do know however:
(1) Evolution does no planning. (2) Its mutations (changes) are random, in general. (3) The mutations
occur on existing material. (4) Evolution does not develop functions not currently needed. (5) The
environment selects (allows to live) mutations which are helpful for survival. These five statements
together strongly imply the gradual development of a decision system and as strongly denies the
possibility of the sudden invention of a super thinking machine which the organism later advances into
using.
The primitive nervous system works as we have described. Starting with the lowest order of mobile
animals and observing the change in nervous systems from those to the most advanced (including man)
there are only gradual changes in system complexity. It is reasonable to assume that evolution works the
same in all species. Therefore man is an extension of the same process.
As nervous systems became more complex through evolution, the new functions were added to the old, so
there is no reason to believe that the methodology changed, nor is there evidence of any different kind of
structure.
In examining brain trauma (strokes and accidents), mainly through autopsy after the patient's debilitation
had been chronicled, the existence of specialized portions of the brain can be demonstrated, and has been
known for a long time.
Physical measurement basis for these assumptions may be observed by various forms of magnetic
resonance imaging. See Magnetic Imaging Techniques.
TOP
Obtaining Information About the Environment

Fig. 4
As the sensors became more complex (capable) the signals they generated also became much more complex,
becoming increasingly more difficult to feed into a decision matrix directly. Evolution is a reactive process, it
does not plan ahead nor does it build in excess of requirements. Rather than build a huge decision mechanism in
order to handle unnecessary detail and allow for future needs, it, in its trial and error method of development,
was forced to adjust the amount of the detail (data compression) before entering the decision mechanism. It
became necessary to preprocess this sensor data into a more compact symbolic form. Consider the human eye for
example. Although it, along with its preprocessor, is an integrating device (summation, data compression), it
produces similarly to a sampling device (such as a TV camera) operating at about twenty frames per second.
With about 110 million sensor elements per eye and a color definition equivalent to at least 8 bits per primary
color, a data flow into the decision matrix equivalent to 2,000 megabytes per second would be an overwhelming
The Human Brain
load to provide for using slow biological circuitry (would require a 200 mhz. Pentium for eye processing alone).
Add millions of other inputs from taste, hearing and touch and the decision matrix would become monstrously
large and also monstrously slow. Only a small percentage of that information from the eye is needed for proper
decision making, and the smaller the decision matrix the faster its throughput. Data compression is a part of the
data preprocessing from each of the sensor sets. The resultant compressed symbol representing current sensor
status is particularly customized, through fixed processing, for the needs of the host. For example, the scene
processed through a cat's eye, though the eye is similar to the human in capability and construction, would be
preprocessed into an entirely different judgment symbol with different accents tailored to the needs of the cat. Of
necessity, this compression (scene analysis) must also make allowances for urgency at the time, more detail
being needed in times of danger, for example.
Sensor preprocessing is performed in certain specified areas of the gray matter of the brain. These areas are
trainable memory, genetically set aside for the specific purpose. They are genetically organized and assigned
circuitry, not useful for anything else and not replaceable through retraining elsewhere if damaged. The
preprocessing (data compression, symbol generation, data integration, data analysis, sensor judgment) for the
human eye takes place in the occipital lobe of each hemisphere (see figure 1). The occipital lobes are well
developed in all mammals. Although primary areas for various preprocessors are relatively fixed in location in
the brain between individuals, there is variation both in location and size. Also, the total area used for
preprocessing for certain senses are not localized. In scanning the human brain for metabolic activity while
performing various functions, it appears that some preprocessing is scattered, indicating that the evolutionary
development process for the function was not uniform but occurred in sporadic time episodes. The mutation
which produced the improvement in a given preprocessing function did not happen at an aesthetically pleasing
location, but once established was the likely loci for future beneficial mutations.
The sensor and its preprocessor are integrated, providing a given function. The capability of the integrated
function effects behavior. The limitations of that capability are input terms for consideration in the decision
matrix. The sensors may in turn be controlled as a part of the output of the decision matrix. Turning the eyes
toward a danger and concentrating mental attention there would be an example.
The preliminary training for these preprocessor areas takes place during the early development of the individual.
For example, the focusing and movement of the eyes along with sight correlation usually takes at least a year.
The coordination of the eye with body movement takes much longer. Although this is training, it is mechanical
training and has little to do with intellect. Further physical training and adjustment occurs throughout life.
TOP
Providing Function
Fig. 5
The Human Brain
Figure 5 shows the addition of a motor controller between the decision matrix and the motor to be controlled. As
the organism became more complex, the output of the decision matrix was required to drive ever more complex
devices and to coordinate those devices. If the complexity of the drive signals was required of the decision
matrix, it would need be enormously wide, complex and slow. The human voice alone, for example, requires
many thousands of simultaneous signals in the formation of phonemes. A simple command to say, "ah" is
enormously complex with tongue and mouth position, breath control, etc. Similarly, the movement and focusing
of the eyes would require many thousands of instructions. These are provided by an eye controller mechanism
rather than directly from the decision matrix.
Here again, trial and error adopted the controller option, a post-processor device, by building a device which
performs the detail translation from decision to performance. The phoneme processor is an excellent example. It
is located primarily in man on the lower portion of the left frontal lobe, whereas in woman it is located in roughly
equal parts on each side of the brain in the same location on both frontal lobes. Other small patches of the brain
show that they are also a part of this same mechanism. When the decision mechanism makes the decision to say,
"ah", the phoneme processor translates that phoneme demand into the multitude of muscular controls needed to
accomplish that task. This controller is trained as the child learns to talk. The basic speech elements may be
obtained in less than two years. Vocabulary additions and pronunciation corrections may be made throughout the
life of the individual.
Each motor device (leg, arm, finger, eye, tongue, etc.) has a trainable controller for the expansion and translation
of the command to that device , an area of gray matter set aside and specifically designed for that function.
It has been shown that the act of seeing provides a scaled version of the scene along the gray matter surface of
the occipital lobe. If a subject is given a map to study then asked to trace the route from a given location on the
map to another both with the eyes and from memory, it takes the same amount of time either way. If a portion of
the visual area in the occipital lobe is damaged, it can be shown that that the seeing is damaged in an exact
reflected way, even though the eyes were not damaged.
An important finding with respect to the eyes is that if a perception area is damaged (in the surface layer of the
occipital lobes), not only is the visual perception damaged, but any scene memory will show defects in that same
area. This indicates that sensory memory is a part of the sensory perception mechanism. All of our memory
scenes are stored in that same layer. It is an easy step, then, to the generalization that all sensory memory is
stored in the sensory perception area for that sensor. A memory recalled which is complete with sight, touch,
sound and smell is an assembly from the various sensory memories.
A final important finding: if a visual perception area in the occipital lobe is damaged, the subject not only loses
the ability to see in the damaged portion, and is not able to recall any historical scene detail in that same area but
from before the damage, the subject is also unable to 'imagine' (construct a mental scene) in that damaged area.
This gives insight into the human creative process. The human 'builds' a scene in the sensory areas as he invents.
The Human Brain
TOP
Direction and Drive: the Conflict of Life

A very large percentage of the brain, perhaps more than 90%, is required for body maintenance (heart,
respiration, etc.), information gathering (sensors and data preprocessing), memory, and motor control (legs, arms,
etc. post-processing and command translation). These together describe the physical abilities and limitations of
the individual. The senses determine the amount and quality of current environmental information. The physical
construction and mobility of the body determines the behavioral capability and capacity of the individual.
But man's behavior goes much deeper. It is the balance of the brain which provides much of what becomes
behavior.
The simple organism shown in figure 3 did not need an impetus to do what it should do and its guiding
mechanism did not provide decision conflict, the basic element of 'intelligence' in animals. In this simple animal,
the sensor gave not only information but also supplied it in such a way that it provided the command signal
required to satisfy the error in that information. Implicit in the sensor's data was the command to do a specific
thing about it. These are referred to as reflex actions, actions taken in direct and immediate response to a given
sensor input. The blink of the eye to prevent injury to it when something moves toward it is an example. The jerk
of the hand away from something hot is another.
As organisms, and their perceived environment, became more complex, animals developed a repertoire of
actions. The decision on which to do became necessary before the command could be issued on what to do.
There were conflicts in the environment and often there were choices which needed to be made. As multiple
requirements grew, the central decision matrix gained terms to be considered.
The first drives (instincts) developed in genetically specified form were the ones that concerned body functions.
Safety, food, sex, and care of young are some of the focal points, all under the general heading survival. Decision
conflict was the method which developed as the result of evolution.
The decision conflict between safety and food was probably the first developed. Before this decision conflict
developed, the animal always sought food. As predators developed around them, those whose only function was
finding food continually blundered into disaster. The idea of survival or safety had not been developed. The first
animal which moved around as it sought food but changed directions rapidly when a moving shadow appeared,
tended to survive better than those that doggedly stayed on path regardless of movement around them.
Whereas before, the signals from the senses were translated directly into commands for motion and eating, now
this translation depends to a certain degree on a new factor. We call that factor fear. The emphasis is hunger, the
conflict is fear. As long as the hunger is greater than the fear, the animal forages. When the fear emotion exceeds
his hunger, the animal will flee. The animal is no longer ever completely comfortable, since it lives in a constant
decision conflict between hunger and fear. Under a comfortable environment, the fear is small and the appetites
may be attended to. Under a stressful environment, the two are balanced, and the animal is extremely
The Human Brain
uncomfortable, barely able to decide whether he wishes to eat, or to be eaten. This, historically, has been the
position of man, constant fear and constant hunger, each ebbing and flowing with the experiences of the day.
(Investors on the stock market play the same game today.) The modern attitude of mental conflict avoidance,
espoused by modern psychologists and philosophers, is a perversion. TGIF is a death mantra. Man needs that
inner conflict, it is the essence of his life. His value, then, lies in his unique solution. Without conflict, what
difference does a solution make? Who cares?
The forage/danger conflict along with the fear function which regulates the balance between those factors is one
we see often. Feed a wild animal or bird in your back yard and you will enslave him. Your backyard becomes a
foraging location of relative safety and some constancy, neither of which exists elsewhere in his habitat. The
forage/danger ratio becomes quite desirable in his decision matrix and the animal will strive to enjoy it. Feed the
animal a constant amount regularly, and the crowd will increase as others gather for a handout. As the crowd
grows, the food for each shrinks. The crowd will continue to grow even when the amount of food available for
each approaches a starvation diet. Soon, it's a battle royal between competing animals. A similar process exists in
human welfare systems. All welfare systems, regardless of the species involved, will tend to grow without limit.
It is natural that they do and the growth should be expected.
Evolution then favored three kinds of changes to the animal:
Instincts which provide for problem avoidance: If the animal became more adept at identifying his danger
so that he more often fled when he should and less often fled when there was no need, he had more time
to find food and tended to survive better. This was gained by developing a fixed mental sensory image
which more closely resembled the danger, so that sensory input could be compared and the decision could
more easily be made between danger and no danger. The actual sensory image, in this case, was compared
with the genetically fixed (instinctive) memory pattern. The amplitude of the output signal (fear) was in
direct proportion to the degree which the two matched.
Instincts which favored problem solving: If the animal became more adept at identifying his food, he
became more efficient in his foraging and made better use of the time he was not fleeing from danger;
therefore he tended to survive better. The food image was developed in the same manner as the danger
image above: an image in fixed memory (actually composed of many images related to the senses) to
which the sensory image could be compared.
Instincts which caused the organism to be more dynamic: If the decision matrix became more
sophisticated so that the flee or eat decision was brought into sharper focus, the animal wasted less time in
fleeing without diminishing his safety from being eaten and thereby became more efficient in the use of
his time. This was done in part by developing a hysteresis in the decision mechanism which diminished
the fear, even though danger was allowed to be recognized as being present, until the danger reached a
certain threshold. Thus bravery was born, the instinct which allows function in the face of danger.
Once these three trends (natural occurrences of behavior modifying instincts under the selection process) became
established, all of the modern higher animals, including the human, became probable. These three instincts
become more adept with time, and many new instincts grew from these. Where are these various instincts
located? Most sensory and motor signal processors contain that portion of the instinct which effects them in the
analysis of their requirements. It is believed that the central portions of the instinct set reside in the frontal lobes.
Chance mutations when life was young developed the sexual animal. The prior cell division method of
reproduction had resulted in great stability in the various forms of life. The sexual animal provided more
The Human Brain
variations, to try out against the environment, than the asexual reproduction could provide. Most variations were
worse and quickly died out but some were improvements and these tended to survive by crowding out the
asexual animal. In the beginning, sex was for the purpose of reproduction. Early animals had no notion of
reproduction. Sexual drive was provided genetically (another instinct). Those who engaged in a lot of sex had a
lot of offspring and therefore tended to thrive as a species. The others tended to disappear as a species. The
selection process favored a strong sexual lust, in most species. It became so strong in many species that it
transcended food and even danger. Increased sexual drive tends to be intensified by the process of evolution, to a
point. If it becomes too strong, it creates problems which in turn may be so serious that the continuation of the
lineage is harmed. In that case, the evolutionary process will tend to eliminate those species with lusts which are
too strong. Lust becomes another factor in the decision matrix.
If a species has so many offspring that sheer numbers provide the species continuation, then the parent is quite
casual toward them. Plants follow this path, with some plants providing millions of seeds each year with the
hopes that in their lifetime at least one of those will live to bear seeds also. Rabbits are known for this approach.
Male mammal sperm also follow the route that success depends on large numbers. Other animals, such as the
human, dolphin and elephant, bear only a few young which require lengthy care to become adult and have their
own offspring. These offspring require lengthy personal care, in turn requiring a great attachment between parent
and young. Those parents who do not have this attachment, do poorly in raising their offspring and their genetic
lineage tends to die out. Those who have great attachment are more successful in raising their young and their
lineage tends to prosper. Thus parental love became an instinctive driving force in the decision matrix and now
competes (conflicts) with all selfish instincts. Since this instinct was developed during tribal conditions where the
intermingling of cooperating families was necessary, parental love in the human extends to all children, and in
fact, somewhat extends to the young of other species. Almost everyone loves a puppy.
What is the extent of the development of neural behavior mechanisms (how many instincts are there?) in the
brain? It is not that simple. Take the one we call parental love for example. It, like all instincts, invokes an
emotion when triggered. Usually it is triggered by a sensory input: we see a child, we smell the characteristic
odor of a baby, we feel the softness of their skin, we hear it gurgle in baby laughter. These sensory experiences
are decoded in the various sensory control areas. There is no central location for the instinct, it is distributed but
inter-linked. And the instinct itself is not discrete. We categorize instincts, as we do almost everything whether
the process fits or not, as a means of segmenting knowledge for ease in communication and understanding.
Segmenting instincts in the human mind is an intellectual aid but does not reflect physical condition. The instinct
of compassion, for example, is an instinct developed under tribal conditions for the purpose of sharing tribal
goods (which enhanced the ability of the tribe to survive). Its roots are in parental love (care for the helpless
child). So where does one leave off and the other begin? Instinctive man is a skull full of lumpy instinctive stew.
TOP
EDUCATING AND TRAINING THE HUMAN
The Human Brain
There is a physical change in gray matter with use. Cells in the outer thin area of the cortex which are extensively
used during a given action show visible change under the microscope.
A classic experiment involved a large group of mice. They were first divided into two groups of equal size. Both
groups were placed in identical containers and given identical food and water. One container was bare. The other
contained many toys and innovative runs. After a period of time, half of each group was sacrificed and their
brains examined. There was a decided difference in the appearance of the brains. Cells in the 'busy' group
appeared much more robust. The containers were then swapped and the remainder of the mice returned. After the
same period of time as the first part of the experiment, the balance of the mice in each group was sacrificed and
their brains examined. It was found in each case that the appearance of the brains had shifted back. The brains
from the formerly sedentary mice had become more robust with the new stimulation and the formerly robust
brains had shifted to the appearance of those from the sedentary container in the first half of the experiment.
(This should tell you something about how we should handle criminal prisoners.)
The Broca's area is a neural mechanism which provides the function of motor processor for the human voice
mechanism. It receives a word in the form of a string of phonemes as input, then provides the multitude of
exquisitely timed and controlled commands to chest, tongue and throat muscles to properly form the word.
Applying the knowledge gained from the mouse experiment, one would expect that there would be physical
difference between the Broca's area of the average person and that of an opera singer. Such is the case. There is a
marked difference.
Evolution is inventive in the sense that it is chaos squeezed through a filter. Mutations are accidents and are,
therefore, bereft of reason. The environment is what it is, and no more. It has no planning, and, also, no reason.
But, when the mutations apply to the environment for survival, most are found wanting, and they perish. The end
result of the entire process appears to be inventive. (The fact is this is the way man invents things, too. He
idiotically runs through a bunch of impossibles before finding the invention he was looking for.) Once evolution
finds a solution, a mechanism which is successful in surviving, it does not strike off looking for a new way to do
things. It always works from (happens to) that which already exists. If by chance it should find a better method,
the creature incorporating the new and superior idea crowds out the old. It's a competitive world. So rest assured,
if one way solves a problem in the body, you will not find another way to do the same thing anywhere in the
body. The same process will be used wherever needed.
If the Broca's area responds to activity, in the same manner as the brains of the mice, then all other neural
mechanisms which perform the same kind of function (a set of signals in, processed to a new set of signals out)
will respond in a like manner. Observation of other motor areas bear this theory out.
If the Broca's area gets damaged, you are through talking. No other brain area can be trained to take its place. In
the same manner, no matter the activity (education, practice or training), the Broca's area can't be trained to do a
different function.
An instinct is a neural mechanism. It is not a reasoning mechanism. It receives a set of signals and produces
another set of signals. It can be exercised. It can be strengthened. If made inactive through inattention, it will
atrophy to a low level influence. It can't be trained into a new function. If the instinct is one that fits the culture, it
can be strengthened through attention and use. An instinct which is deleterious can be over-ridden by conscious
control (unless defective, the human is quite trainable). Education on the facts of man and his fit in the universe
will in most cases supply the information for proper control of the instincts (and consequent acceptable behavior).
The Human Brain
Racial bigotry is an instinct formed during the two million years that man developed from habilis to sapien as a
tribal warrior and hunter. Tribal militancy was the necessary norm. Modern educators waste time trying to
educate it into something else, an impossibility. The most they can do is make the child lie and feel inferior
because he 'thinks wrong'. It is possible that the instinct is strengthened every time the attempt is made to educate
it. Forget educating the instinct and train the child's behavior. Tell him it may be understandable but any form of
racially bigoted behavior is forbidden. With proper behavior the instinct will wither.
It is clear from this description, that man learns best (whether in knowledge, motor skill or instinct control)
through repetition. In fact, practice (repetition) is the only way that it can 'learn'. Ask any basketball player,
pianist or mathematician. The neural mechanisms in each instance, though specialized, operate on the same
principle. Only the modern educator scoffs.
Conclusion: Our current public education system is precisely

backwards in intent, content and method.
Nature is inexorable. The process of evolution produces life forms which can survive within the fixed constraints
of nature. Some life forms, such as plants, adapt themselves to fit the requirements of nature. Others adapt nature
to fit themselves to a certain extent. The most successful of the latter has been man. Man has been developed to
be the greatest problem solver yet produced by evolution.
The construction of man's neural system shows his nature specifically. It is composed of thousands of individual
neural functions, each of which has one goal in mind: the solution of a particular set of survival problems or
portion thereof. Man is a problem solver, pure and simple. As long as the problems were outside of man, he
conquered them all, one by one. These problems lend themselves to objective attack. A constant and reliable
food supply became available through agriculture and animal husbandry. Fire for warmth and cooking was
developed. Shelter was constructed from available materials. Medicine was developed. Tools that make tasks
easier were invented.
Man is a successful problem solver. He has overpopulated the world and dominates all other life. He is
successful to the point of negating the cleansing portion of his own evolution. See The Degeneration of Man He
is faced with species extinction if he does not solve this problem.
All of man's remaining problems are those he has generated himself. These are problems which he is not
equipped naturally to solve. Man does well in objective pursuits. He can build a better rabbit snare, and a rocket
to fly to the moon. But, in spite of the fact that he believes he is brilliantly intelligent in all things, he is dumb as
a rock when it comes to subjective problems. He is not equipped. Those problems did not exist when man
evolved and evolution now supplies problems, not solutions. His conflict summation matrix (intuition), all
thousands of elements, were designed for an entirely different set of problems. Man's philosophy and
psychology, as they are defined today, are no more and can be no more than pure drivel.
Since man's nature is that of solving problems, and he has solved the ones provided by nature, those for which he
was designed to solve, it is natural that he tend to take the easy way. Relax. Indulge in food and drink. Let
somebody else do it. And then there are the three ultimate cop-outs - suicide, drug dependency and socialism. All
three give away man's freedom and vitality in return for producing nothing. Man is born to be challenged. Take
The Human Brain
conflict (competition) away from man and those attributes which make him human will atrophy.
As a superb problem solver of outside things which effect him, man removed the problems. That removal may
have been his death call. In turning his 'intelligence' from the solving of objective problems, he has generated
fatal subjective problems. He has two solutions from which to choose, if he wishes to survive:
1. Return to the law of the jungle and recreate the life of the last two million years, with all its death and
misery. This means forsaking a rich standard of living, abandoning medicine, rejecting a compassionate
culture and requiring a reduction in population to a small percentage of that now. The natural forces of
evolution would then cleanse his gene pool and keep it lean. Man, as a species, would survive
indefinitely, or
2. Develop and enforce rigid and objective social thinking, translate man's problems into objective goals,
then treat himself as his own worst enemy, always skeptical of all that he does. This solution does not
mean forsaking a rich standard of living or a compassionate society.
Man's social thought must be restructured. His cultural structure must be rebuilt. He needs to scrap his
non-science education system and enlarge his scientific studies, with all of its rigor, to cover subjective
man himself. Educational psychology, for instance, should be an engineering field, with all of the
skepticism, rigor and methodology that shift implies. Allow traditional teaching techniques to remain until
enough is known. Force the proving of new teaching methods before applying them. Above all, do not
allow academics to reshape the culture.
.
TOP
Human as a Digital Mechanism.
Man, the Digital Machine

There is enough evidence to show that man is a digital organic machine. As such, he may be measured,
quantified, augmented and redesigned. There will be many in opposition and the road will be rocky, but
reason will prevail.
THE OPPOSITION
THE GENOME IS A DIGITAL PROGRAM
A LOOK AT THE NEURAL SYSTEM
NEURAL SYSTEM OUTPUT DRIVERS
DNA AS A MEMORY DEVICE
The Opposition
Man is an arrogant creature, with exalted opinions of his own worth and value. He is thus blinded by his
subjectivity and becomes angry at anyone who he perceives to be trying to tilt his pedestal. Those who live by
dogma, be they religious or liberal/socialist/Marxist, are unwilling to listen due to the security they feel in their
beliefs. The religious call the student of genetics and evolution a horrible corrupter of society, leading mankind
into cultural chaos. The academic elite, though not a believer in souls, nevertheless attributes to the "whole" man
some sort of ethereal or spiritual quality far far above the probing of an insensitive and mechanical minded
scientist, one who is more robot than man and therefore lacking in the understanding of the higher qualities of the
"civilized" man.
By his nature, man is curious. Curiosity is an instinct and is present in all of the higher animals. It is a valuable
instinct for survival. Knowledge of the environment, gathered before it is needed, adds accuracy to decision
making when an emergency arises. Place any one of the higher animals in a new environment and it will
immediately begin exploring. It will be cautious at first, but as knowledge expands so does confidence. A
primary part of man's survival and ascendancy was the result of his curiosity. As he learned about his
environment down through the ages, he turned the knowledge to his own benefit. As long as he is a man, man
will remain curious. Although it may stop him from speaking out, no dogma will ever stop man from questioning
the universe and every particle in it.
In the beginning this search for knowledge concerned food and safe havens from predators. Now it is space, the
origin of the universe and the greatest challenge of all for man, man himself. He learned early on that often the
success of any job depended on the tools available for that job. A dull axe makes gathering wood for the evening
meal a more difficult task. Now man realizes that the limiting tool in his future is man himself. It has become
file:///C|/onelifebook/evolve/digman.html (1 of 9)1/25/2007 4:50:56 PM
necessary to define those limits.

What is man? This is the ultimate question, solve it and all of the needs of man will fall into place. Is he a divine
creature, as the religious believe, created and protected by an ultimate being? Or is he an intelligent creature, as
the LSM believes, capable of understanding all through the power of his mind? Or neither, as the 'moderate'
believes. Or is he an instinctive animal with intelligence, as the study of his origin and development would
indicate? Only the latter theory has factual basis.
There are many who seek the easy answer and will continue to do so. Others don't wish to know. Still others are
afraid of the truth. For all of these, dogma, whether religious or socialist, provides their answer. To be sure, one
or the other may be right, but dogma does not provide conclusive answers. Many men are doubters of both and
suspect an entirely different set of answers, answers for questions some of which are still unknown. If the
socialist is correct, why should he fear this study? It can only add evidence to his theories. The same for the
religious. Both should welcome proof that their theories are correct. What they will not admit is that they are
afraid of being proven wrong, and in that event their worlds will come crashing down around them.
The LSM bunch worship man in his carnal completeness and they see absolutely no need for any further
understanding. Don't bother them with facts, their minds are made up. Like the religious, they are frightened, but
their fear is that somehow someone will prove that man does need self-discipline, that there are rules he must
follow, that most of his actions are instinctive and therefore will not respond to education, and that he should be
punished if he does something wrong. Horrors! Their main fear is that they personally might need to conform to
rules of civil decency and honor, in which they do not believe. That's why they fight so hard against value
systems. Besides, to them anything learned in science isn't fit for the "whole" man, one with education in the
literature, humanities and art. Conjecture, dogma and opinion are far more reasonable sources for knowledge to
them.
Contrary to both of these stands, it appears that it is highly possible that man is definable, mentally and
physically. Not yet, but soon. Why? Because man is an organic digital machine. Digital machinery may be
analyzed, duplicated and modified. State of the art computation and communication equipment is digital. Man is
becoming adept at the analysis, manufacture and design of digital equipment. Man becomes just another piece of
equipment which needs analysis. Why? Because like any machine that was built with poor engineering and
undisciplined construction, it needs repair or replacement. Both of these functions require a thorough prior
understanding.
TOP
The Genome is a Digital Program.

When executed, it produces man. The following section is repeated from Evolution. It is repeated here for
reading continuity.
The DNA which describes each individual is in a digital code. The code is made up of four possible values. In
number form, these could be expressed as 0, 1, 2, 3, but are normally expressed as four letter values: A, C, G,
and T. These are always paired with their reciprocal value (see the text OneLife for more detail). Note that the
DNA description of all living things is made up of only four basic construction blocks. There are about three
billion of these base pairs in the human genome. These are used in groups of three, called codons. Each codon
consists of three base pairs, each of which may carry one of four possible values. The number of codon values
which can be expressed in three elements of four values each is 64. Normally these values would be assigned as
0, 1, 2, etc. through the number 63. Instead, all possible codons are expressed in the following table:
AAA AAC AAG AAT ACA ACC ACG ACT
AGA AGC AGG AGT ATA ATC ATG ATT
CAA CAC CAG CAT CCA CCC CCG CCT
CGA CGC CGG CGT CTA CTC CTG CTT
GAA GAC GAG GAT GCA GCC GCG GCT
GGA GGC GGG GGT GTA GTC GTG GTT
TAA TAC TAG TAT TCA TCC TCG TCT
TGA TGC TGG TGT TTA TTC TTG TTT
Note that this list contains all of the possible codons, there are no CAA.5 or CTT 1/2 codons. The beauty of
things digital is the simplicity and precision. There are 64 precise arrangements of base pairs and only 64. All life
is constructed in response to these precise codon values, and no other.
Most of these sixty-four combinations are used to produce 20 protein building blocks, called amino acids, from
which the human organism is constructed. Some of the others are duplicates, and some are called "stop" codes.
The following list shows the correspondence between the codon values and the 20 amino acids which in man will
be produced from that coding:
Amino Acid
Codons which code for that amino acid
Alenine
GCA GCC GCG GCT
Cysteine
TGC
TGT
Aspartic acid GAC GAT

Glutamic acid GAA GAG
Phenylalanine TTC
TTT
Glycine
GGA GGC GGG GGT
Histidine
CAC CAT
Isoleucine
ATA ATC
Lysine
AAA AAG
Leucine
TTA
TTG
ATT
CTA
CTC CTG CTT
Methionine
ATG
Asparagine
AAC AAT
Proline
CCA CCC
Glutamine
CAA CAG
Arginine
AGA AGG CGA CGC CGG CGT
Serine
AGC AGT TCA
Theonine
ACA ACC ACG ACT
Valine
GTA GTC
Tryptophan
TGG
Tyrosine
TAC
CCG CCT
TCC TCG TCT
GTG GTT
TAT
The substance of the human body is constructed from proteins, which in turn are constructed from these 20
amino acids.
As the program in the genome is read codon by codon from a starting code to a codon stop code, the sequence of
codons dictate the construction of a protein. A particular series of codons will describe a particular protein which
the cell can produce. In the case of man, more than 80,000 different proteins are manufactured in the cells from
these digital formulas to form and maintain the overall organism. Some of these proteins are quite complex. The
final assembly may total many thousands of various amino acids, all arranged precisely. The genome, then, is a
precise digital formula which describes the construction of an entire human being. These instructions include
precise formulas for the material used to build the body and precise assembly instructions as well.
Modern computers use binary arithmetic, where each position (bit) has a value of 0 or 1. Since larger numbers
are needed, a handier concept is a byte, consisting of eight bits and capable of a value from 0 to 255. The codon
set can be represented by assigning values from 0 to 63 and so fits well within a byte. The three billion byte
genome representation will fit in any hard disk of 3 gigabytes are more, well within the size range of modern
desk-top computers. This is the data base which describes man in such detail that it can actually construct an
entire human including all of the instructions for his development and demise. This is the raw data from which
knowledge may be obtained. Every particle of man is described in precise detail. Since his instinct detail is also
fixed by this coding, that will also be analyzed and cataloged. Since man is driven by his instinct in all social
actions, the initial propensity for a particular set of social drives is inherent in his DNA coding and so may be
uncovered individual by individual.
It should be noted that these social drives, being instinctive, are not subject to change through education. This is
why modern dogma fails in our society. It depends on education for proper social action and education can't
effect instinct. Man does not, and can not respond to education which tells him how he should think or feel about
a given social interaction. Those with benign social instincts will always follow the cultural rules, whether taught
to feel right about them or not. Those with perverted social instincts (most of us) will only respond to being
taught what they are allowed to do or not to do. To the degree that these cultural rules interfere with each
individual's instinct, he must be given social encouragement to follow the rules. That encouragement may be
positive or negative. He may be given rewards for doing the proper thing (the use of a special employee of the
month parking place), or swift punishment for infractions (10 years at hard labor in an uncomfortable prison for
an armed felony). Now if we could just get the psychologists, psychiatrists, judiciary, educators, social engineers,
etc. to understand this.

The human genome project is now preparing the human data base. Even now many of the fragments of that data
base have been mapped and their use and purpose documented. It will be several very short years before this
mapping is completed. Most of the genes will be documented within the next twenty years. It may be some time
before the nuances of this digital program have been documented. No matter, the point is that the genome is well
under study and its complete and detailed function will be uncovered and documented. Even now more than
7,000 genetic defects have been located.
Once the genome is mapped and recorded, the function of every element in that program will be analyzed. Since
man's social inclinations are instinctive, that data are recorded in that program. The knowledge and experience
gained after birth and their effect on man's action will remain a mystery for a short time after that, then it, too,
will fall to man's analysis. A look at two of the basic elements of man's nervous system will show that it is
extremely complex and foreign to our engineering concepts of control systems. So much the better, it will be a
challenge worthy of the best of us. Time will come when we will know. (End of section from Evolution).
TOP
A Look at the Neural System

Man's neural system (including his brain) is also digital.
The sketch shows a typical nerve cell which is provided in the body for the transfer of information. The red dot
on the left represents the nucleus of the cell. Signals are input from other nerve cells or from sensors to the cell
wall and the dendrites. There may be many inputs. As a result of these inputs the cell will develop an electrical
pulse which will travel down the axon and away from the nucleus. The axon may be quite short or it may be up
to a meter in length. When the signal reaches the right end of the axon it will travel to the ends of the terminal
branches. There the signal will be applied to many other nerve cells.
The input signal is arranged on receipt to act as either an excitation signal or an inhibition signal. Some pulses
received on certain locations tend to excite the subject nerve cell into discharging an electrical pulse down the
axon, others at different locations tend to inhibit the generation of a pulse. The cell then becomes a decision
mechanism which generates pulses in response to a form of signal summation, quite like a multi-term boolean
function (state machine) in modern computers. The signal on the axon is then distributed to many other nerve
cells for a similar summation (further computation). A typical axon signal is shown below.
The axon signal is an electrical voltage pulse. It requires about .7 millisecond for the pulse to reach its peak
voltage. The decay of the pulse is quite long, about 7 milliseconds. The shape of the pulse with time is incidental,
it is the presence or absence of the pulse which matters in the data transmission. That method is within the
definition of digital communication.
Modern communications practice is to provide high volume data transmission by multiplexing single paths. A
single channel is setup on a signal conductor (example - a fiber optic line) and a high volume of signals are
processed by time-sharing the line. The switching from signal to signal is done so rapidly that it appears to the
end user as if a separate line was assigned to each signal. Modern computer practice is to use parallel high speed
channels with one binary bit transmission on each channel. Electronic signals travel at the speed of 300,000,000
meters per second. The speed of the pulse on an axon is about 100 meters per second. Switching speeds on
electronic equipment are measured in nanoseconds (1/1,000,000,000 second). Axon speeds are measured in
milliseconds (1/1000 second), about a million times slower.
It would seem that the human nervous system is quite slow, but nature has some tricks up its sleeve also. For one
example, consider the eye. The eye is composed of thousands upon thousands of photoreceptors (sensor cells). A
separate nerve axon carries the signal from each photoreceptor into the brain. It uses thousands upon thousands
of parallel channels to offset the slow signal generation and transmission. When it arrives in the brain, each
channel immediately fans out to many other cells through summation decision mechanisms as described above,
where the movement of a signal from cell to cell performs the calculation necessary to visualize the result. All of
the signals from the eye into the brain are in the form of digital pulses. The speed at which the brain can perceive
images is about twenty images per second. This is why TV and movies can fool the brain into perceiving motion
by presenting images at a rate faster than the ability of the eye and brain to process. It is a remarkable feat,
however, that the brain can receive, process and understand a million or so portions of an image in about fifty
milliseconds. That includes high definition color (at least equal to 32 bits per pixel) and with depth perception. It
must simultaneously process two sets of images and compare them. In communications terms that bandwidth is
about the same as a 32 bit wide computer buss running at 20 megahertz. Not shabby at all for something that
bleeds.
The information processing within the brain utilizes nerve cells as shown in the first schematic, with multiple
inputs and outputs. Information spreads through the brain quite rapidly. The propagation rate is about 1
millisecond per computation (the time required for the pulse to reach its peak, travel a short distance, and fire the
next stage). For example, if the average number of terminal branches was 20, and the computation extended to a
period allowing 10 stages of calculation (about 10 milliseconds), the signal from a single axon could reach far
more than all of the cells in the brain. This indicates a far more complex computation method than the simple
boolean circuitry on the cell walls and in the dendrites. Timing also enters into the picture, since an inhibiting
signal would appear at different times during the computation period in different portions of the brain. Brain
wave patterns synchronize these sequential computations. Since we know that sight images require about 50
milliseconds, then the signals from each photoreceptor must "circulate" in the brain about 50 times before
serving its complete function. This indicates the involvement of a significant portion of the brain in a series of
sequential computations with a constant input data rate being part of that computation.
To further confuse the issue, the "connections" between the nerve cells undergo physical change with use. A
connection not used withers. A connection used often becomes strong. The brain is born with a program. At least
a part of that program changes with time and frequency of use. Does this mean that even instincts may be
educated? In a sense, yes. The intellectual portion of the brain may be trained to control the instinct. If there is
constant intellectual lingering on an emotion, such as sexual desire, then the emotion (instinct) is extended into
the intellectual portion of the brain, in the form of permanent connections there. This is what causes sexual
addiction and is proof that pornography effects behavior. The nerve cells which form an instinct do not receive
new information, they are a fixed transmitter ready to respond with its signal on request (similar to a computer
ROM). Virtuous behavior, one that controls sexual thought, diminishes the connections. Virtuous behavior may
be taught (by reward and punishment, not by feel-good teaching). Sexual promiscuity is now being taught (by
deriding virginity-a punishment and "understanding" sexual activity-a reward). We even pay cash rewards for
promiscuity.
TOP
Neural System Output drivers

Wait! You may say. What keeps us from moving like a jerky movie robot, what with all those digital signals?
The answer is a special adaptation of the nerve cell when its output is intended to drive a muscle. The sketch
below shows one of these in schematic form:
The nerve cell body and the axon are the same as the standard nerve cell discussed above. The terminals, though,
are connected directly into the muscle tissue. The muscle contracts when an electrical potential is applied. If a
pulse was used, the muscle would twitch. The signal it needs is an analog one, one which varies in electrical
potential, thereby controlling the amount and speed of the muscle contraction, but the input signals to the cell are
pulses. This nerve cell performs that function by summing the number of pulses received into a varying voltage,
a voltage which is proportional to the speed of the incoming pulses. It is a pulse rate to voltage converter, a
known function in digital audio conversion. Each time the axon is triggered, a given charge is introduced into its
inner channel. That charge requires a finite time to bleed off. If additional charges are added during that bleed off
time, they will accumulate in the axon. The chart below shows this buildup to a given voltage corresponding with
a given input trigger rate.
The darker lines show the incoming pulses with time, the lighter line shows the buildup of the output controlling
voltage. The pulse rate shown is about 800 pulses per second and the output voltage reaches a constant of about
twice the peak pulse voltage. As the pulse rate from the brain varies, the electrical potential in the axon terminals
vary and the muscle tightens and relaxes.
As a side interest, adaptations of this system provide the electric eel with his shocking power.
TOP
DNA as a Digital Memory Device

The DNA within each cell of an organism contains the description of that entire organism. In that sense it is a
memory device, one which is repeated in each cell. When a cell replicates, the DNA which is a part of that cell,
also replicates.
As it is used in the cells of an organism, various patterns in the DNA provide instructions for the manufacturing
of various proteins. The cell, in which the DNA giving the instructions resides, then produces that protein in the
designated amounts. These proteins are used in the construction and repair of the body of the organism.
The genome of a given organism is therefore a particular set of knowledge (information, instructions, memory)
in DNA format which describes in detail the physical and neural construction of the organism. This knowledge is
then replicated throughout the body of the organism and is passed down to future generations of the organism.
Since it can replicate, we say it is alive. DNA, therefore, is a living form of digital memory.
The human genome is about 3 billion base pairs in length. Each base pair has four possible conditions (A, G, C
and T). There are two sets in each cell in the human body. This is equivalent to a computer hard disk with a
capacity of 1.5 gigabytes in each cell, an enormous sub-microscopic ROM (read only memory), sufficient for
two sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica. A thumb-sized organ specifically designed for knowledge recall should
some day be possible, one which could contain all of the factual knowledge of the modern human. Formed in the
brain at birth, it would be useful throughout the life of the human.
Questions about access are still unanswered. The organism body uses a system of area selection which activates
the gene necessary for that particular location of the cell. It, in effect, reads out that portion of memory. In
mapping genomes in the laboratory, it is necessary to determine the sequence of the DNA, exactly the same
process needed for reading out a memory. Phospholipid membranes will transport electric charges making them
a possibility for interrogation of an organic memory. These and many other avenues must be explored. Many
different access systems will be needed since not only are these memory systems needed in the organism body,
the same system would have industrial and commercial applications.
TOP
Evolution, Genetics and Soul.
a Search for
the Soul of Man
The mark of man is the ability to understand the meaning of behavior and to know right from wrong. All
other animals are instinctive, but a human is a human to the degree that it uses its intellect to control its
behavior. The totality of this ability, engraved in its neural system, is the soul of man.
All people seem to resent probing into genetics and evolution, as if it was a personal attack. They claim that such
probing is without sensitivity and demeans man since it portrays man as a mechanical device. There are two
central beliefs by all mankind which transcend cultural differences: 1. Life is more than its chemicals, and 2.
Man is more than his mechanism. In the light of the meager knowledge available, these two need study.
Spirituality does not lend itself to clinical study (in spite of the dogma of modern psychology). It is approached
briefly herein in the hopes of soothing those who seem to feel that all study of mankind must include this
"fourth" dimension of man. This study will look at spirituality through three different perspectives:
1. The predominant contemporary theory of life is the liberal/socialist/Marxist (LSM) movement, now
gaining dominance in this country and already dominant in the media, schools, courts and governmental
bureaucracy. These believe that value systems are not needed, that all cultures are equal in value, that man
is socially intelligent and therefore responds to social education, that when man errs it is the fault of the
culture, that virtue, patriotism, virginity, and abstinence are archaic religious bigotries, that competition is
evil, that free enterprise requires competition and is therefore also evil, that self-esteem should be taught
and not earned, and that all human life is precious (except during pregnancy when it is no more than feces
in the bowels). They do not believe in any use of reward and punishment.
2. The religions, once prominent, are in decline. Whether the human value system they teach is the work of a
supreme being or the distilled wisdom of thousands of years of wise men is a matter of debate, but it is a
system, if followed, that will provide a culture which is comfortable and conducive to productive life.
That value system fails only when not followed. They also have dogma which is proven in error. By much
imaginative reasoning, the LSM uses this to prove that the value system is in error also. That's called
throwing the baby out with the bath water. On the other hand the religions refuse to share their value
system with any one else who does not also believe their erroneous dogma as well. "Either believe
everything like we do or go to hell." This not only shows lack of compassion and brotherhood by those
who profess to have a corner on that market, but damages the credibility of their religion as well. These
believe that man is born with the capability of being saint or sinner, and with the ability to control his
actions. What man actually does, they believe, is by his choice. They teach social rules by reward and
punishment.
3. The Onelife text sees man as an instinctive animal with intelligence. It finds that man's social instincts
may not be modified through education, that social rules are enforceable only through reward and
punishment. The intelligence then considers each social act as consisting of two parts, that which he
would do if unfettered with cultural rules and the consequences of following that action as compared to
following the cultural rule. If the culture is properly designed (strongly enforced), the decision will be
file:///C|/onelifebook/evolve/soul.html (1 of 5)1/25/2007 4:50:57 PM
made in favor of the community. Social education is then simply a matter of stating the rules of the
culture and their consequences. Man then adjusts his behavior by his intelligence (self-discipline). The
bulk of education time can then be spent in learning provable knowledge.
Science is the search for truth, and the only process available to mankind by which truth may be found. Much of
what passes for knowledge today may or may not be true. It may have elements of truth within it but its
statement is without basis and thus may not be proven true or false. Many wise men have postulated this or that,
and since it sounds reasonable, man has followed, often to meet with disaster. Even if man limits his efforts to
knowledge which has measurable basis, the element of failure is still quite large. Man's measurement accuracy
and ability to understand what he measures is still quite primitive. Even so, it is not reasonable to utilize
"knowledge" which is not so based (dogma), especially if another course of action is available, one which is
based on observation and measurement. In the absence of knowledge with basis, it is quite reasonable not to act,
since anything attempted would have a high likelihood of failure. The failure of modern society has been caused
by a multitude of actions taken with certain expectations, only to have totally different and destructive results.
Enough was not known before the action was taken. In the absence of such data, the only reasonable action
would have been to withhold final action until measurements could be taken.
Man has been uncomfortable with ignorance since man began. When he could not fathom something, he made up
a story which made him comfortable. In doing so he fell into a trap of perpetuating dogma, some of which was
quite harmful. He not only wasted a lot of time imagining these things into existence, he also spent a major part
of his time defending them. All of this takes time away from seeking true knowledge. Incredibly, in the defense
of his pet dogma, man will deny knowledge developed through observation, measurement and direct reasoning,
even to the point of demonizing the researcher and his data. Admittedly it is distressing to admit ignorance, when
there are huge chunks of existence which cannot be explained without castles in the air.
All of the social "sciences" of today are archaic in that they still live in the way of the caveman: If one doesn't
know something, he makes up a story that provides his solution, then teaches it to anyone who will listen (and
call the rest ignorant, stupid and reactionary). Man needs to know the depth of his ignorance, only by that can he
realize the lack of knowledge and the immensity of the remaining knowledge to be explored. The only way to
bring this to the front is to systematically discard all dogma, opinion, and conjecture. Then face the unknown
with diligence and confidence. This divorcing of oneself from dogma which is comfortable is often extremely
painful.
This is by way of explanation on why life and man must be studied as a basis for the culture in which he lives.
And none of it concerns spirituality, a subject in which any investigator into truth feels extremely uncomfortable,
since any discussion borders on the very dogma which the true investigator abhors.
The First Life

There are two requirements of life: to reproduce and to compete. The first is required to meet the very basic
definition of life and the second is required for continued existence. It is this competition between and within
species that provides the environment in which evolution flourishes. Remove that competition and deleterious
mutations flourish instead, degenerating the species into non-existence while another species takes over. That
first tiny shred of life not only needed to reproduce, it needed to succeed in competition with others for the
available food. It then needed to develop into a more and more efficient competitive organism in order to stay up
or forge ahead of its peers. Our ancestors were successful in this competition, otherwise we would not be here.
Our modern concept of abandoning competition is not only contrary to reason, it is against nature itself. It is, in
fact, an abandonment of life.
So from the beginning of life, it could not only reproduce itself, but it would struggle. It had spirit. Certainly this
is more than the chemicals that went into its form. Those same chemicals piled in a heap without being arranged
properly produce nothing. Arranged properly it has internal life. It will use food from its environment and
rearrange its structure to provide the next generation. That difference can be measured. It can't be explained.
Man will, in time, discover how to construct the basic mechanisms of life from basic inanimate elements. If we
as a species are lucky enough to hold together long enough, we will probably provide our own replacement,
hopefully a more reasonable one. Those new creatures, born naturally from the intelligence of prior life, can be
somewhat understood. Intelligence rearranges some chemicals and produces something that lives. Still, whence
came the intelligence? And where does the spirit that intelligence breathed into this new life by doing mechanical
things come from?
Natural life, that life from which we came, is even less understandable. Could life naturally arise from death?
Where is the intelligence that ordained certain chemical compounds to live, compete, and have the will to live?
Evolution
Life not only reproduces itself, through evolution it also provides myriad forms and complex creatures. If all it
did was reproduce itself there are many very primitive viable creatures, many as old as life itself, which would
have sufficed. There is no necessity for many different life forms nor for very complex life forms. Yet they
developed.
Evolution is a naturally occurring process which combines the effects of the environment, the species and
mutations. The environment for a particular species consists of the atmosphere (weather), bodies of water, the
firmament of the earth, and the influence of all other species of life. The species includes the effects of its current
size, distribution, form and behavior.
Evolution is a brutal process. It provides accidents, most of which are harmful, often fatal, to the individual of
the species. Occasionally a mutation occurs which improves survivability. Since the harmful ones cause death of
the individual, they are discontinued as they happen. Since the beneficial one aids in survival then it is
propagated. We know and understand the process well. Since it starts with an existing life form, it builds on its
evolutionary history, that which it has already done.
Life, through evolution, is a regenerative function. It builds on itself. The more varied and complex it
becomes, the more varied and complex it can become. What kind of wondrous process is this which builds
more complexity as it progresses with time. Why should it? What feature of life is it that makes it self-creating?
Science will allow knowledge about the form and substance of life, hopefully to the point that it can help that life
be a better one, but the mystery will remain. It is beyond a mere study of matter. And science is charged with the
understanding of matter. So there will be those who will continue to study, learning more and more about what
happens and when. And there is no need for anyone to feel threatened. Finding out how something works has
absolutely no effect on what it is.
So, if you religious people wish to believe that a supreme being exists and that he created, and is creating, all life,
then so be it. All science can do is show you how He did it. You others make up whatever story you wish to
believe, but keep in mind that yes, life is far more than the chemicals that make it. In fact that difference is as
life is to death, with self-creativity thrown in for good measure. Either way, there is something tender and
precious (if not sacred) about all life, of which man is a small part. All life must be treated with reverence.
Man is more than his mechanism

All those who make this statement, separate man from all other life, as being somehow a special form of life.
What are they talking about when the religious speaks of the soul and the LSM speaks of that which in man is in
excess of the structure of his physical body? The religious speak of man as a special creation, one capable of
exercising free-will, and one who is admonished to obey or suffer the consequences. The LSM believes that the
sum of man's experience and intelligence provides a creature above others.
Common in both theories is the exercise of intelligence. The religious believes that man has the propensity to do
both good and evil and he must choose by understanding the consequences and using his intelligence to control
himself. The LSM considers himself an intelligent creature and therefore can do no wrong, but he feels that his
intelligence and experience have combined to produce a more wondrous creature.
Our studies have shown that man is an instinctive animal with intelligence. The ascendancy of man to the top of
the animal kingdom was through his intelligence. Since intelligence is useful in society only when it controls
(restricts or augments) instincts, then man is an instinctive animal who by his intelligence controls his instincts.
This theme fits the religious concept that man is capable of evil and that he must through his religion learn to
control himself in order to be a worthy person. The LSM on the other hand, recognizes that he possesses spirit
even though he does not recognize the need to distinguish between good and evil in his actions nor does he see
the necessity to control his instincts.
The common belief in all three theories is that intelligence is the deciding factor when rating man against all
other life. That is the factor that makes him different. That is the factor that gives him soul or spirit. The
disagreement between the LSM theory on the one hand and the religious and OneLife theories on the other is the
use of this intelligence. Both the religious and OneLife feel that intelligence is for the purpose of controlling
one's instincts so that his behavior will conform with the needs of the community. The LSM feels that he has his
rights that transcend the community and therefore uses his intelligence to further his own pleasure (by declaring
all instincts normal and allowing them free reign).
It has been established in prior text that intelligence is a distributed property in the brain. Since the social
instincts were developed long before brain enlargement, they are probably centralized in the volume that we
inherited from ramidus and aferensis. When the brain calculates, the paths that have heavy use strengthen and
those not used wither. This may be the basis of memory. Recalling an event may be a replay of the original. If
the event is repeated, the replay (recall) is clearer.
Social interaction is instinct driven, therefore paths between the intellect and the instincts are busy ones. The
paths which the individual wishes to accentuate (the road between the intellect and those instincts deemed by the
individual to be beneficial) will turn into super-highways. The paths which the individual wishes to diminish (the
road between the intellect and those instincts deemed by the individual to be harmful) will become littered with
detour and do not pass signs. The accented paths will tend to grow and stabilize throughout the brain while the
diminished paths will tend to become nebulous. In time, therefore, the connections between the instincts and the
intellectual areas will reflect the character (soul, spirit) of the man. If good instincts have been deliberately
augmented, they no longer occupy only the center of the brain, they now extend all through the brain. Likewise
with the evil. If reference to an evil instinct is deliberately diminished, it remains essentially imprisoned in its
central home. The man starts with a given set of inclinations. He ends with the story of what he has made of his
life, spreading like fine lace all through his brain. Man becomes what he has made of himself from the clay
which he inherited. If he has carefully augmented his good instincts and as carefully avoided as much traffic as
possible in the forbidden, then he has succeeded in building something worthwhile. Something that is private and
personal. Something which belongs to him only.
The mechanism of man is the same at the beginning of his life and at the end. It has not only exhibited life by its
existence, it has gained something more precious with time, the encapsulated description of a unique personality.
Those who have no value systems or have pared them to essentially zero, on the other hand, are in deep trouble.
They have no basis for improvement. Their spirit remains as undefined at the end as the basis at their conception.
Their entire brain reflects the exact original instinctive structure. They have benefitted little from living. There is
little difference between them and any other instinctive animal. It is only through struggle that man developed to
his present capability. It is only with struggle that man can develop his soul. The higher the standards (values)
that he sets for himself, early in life, the greater the struggle. It is in that struggle that man is noble, for it is that
struggle that differentiates man from all other life.
This is why a stringent value system is needed so desperately by man, and one in which he is indoctrinated at a
very early age.
Yes. There is a soul (spirit), one that is unique with you, one that both reflects and guides you, one which is
your responsibility. Its delicate silken fabric may some day be measured, but its spirit will never be
explained.
Human Degeneration
The Degeneration of Man

Summary
Mutations are inevitable in human reproduction. Very few mutations are beneficial, probably far less than
one in a thousand. The human developed under a severe environment. Beneficial mutations improved
survival chances, and deleterious mutations were quickly eliminated by the environment. The result was a
high birthrate, high death rate, and a short life, but the process of evolution thereby maintained a lean and
healthy gene pool. The human conquered its environment with tools, clothing, shelter, medicine, high food
production and compassionate cultures. It gained a long life span and huge population growth. The
environment no longer removes deleterious mutations unless they are immediately fatal. The human's
gene pool is no longer maintained. The result is a rapid degradation in body and mind due to the
accumulation without control of degenerating mutations in the gene pool. The rate of human descent is
perhaps thousands of times faster than the rate of its ascent. Unless checked, the modern human (Homo
sapiens), as a species, will soon collapse. The degeneration is already apparent.
Dissent
The views expressed in this text are not consistent with those of professionals in the fields of genetics and
evolution. Their objections are threefold:
1. Diversity is natural and desirable. There is a new and changing environment to which the genetic
structure of man is now adjusting. This new environment consists mainly of changes in the environment due
to man himself. It is natural for a species to drift (diverge) to fit the new environmental requirements.
2. Even if true, the degeneration is in terms of millions of years for a significant change, allowing man
plenty of time to recognize it and if true to counter it. Mathematical models show that it requires millions
of years for a gene to change significantly.
3. Any study of genetics and evolution outside of the academic community is considered pseudoscience used by racist Hitler-type personalities who wish to revive the gas-chamber procedure for
ethnic cleansing along with oppressive interference in the freedom of man through compulsory
eugenics.
.
file:///C|/onelifebook/evolve/degen.html (1 of 7)1/25/2007 4:50:58 PM
Human Degeneration
We answer these three objections:

1.There is a vast difference between divergence and degeneration when considering the process of
evolution. Under a severe environment, evolution quickly weeds out deleterious genes (those that adversely
effect the survival of the species) and perpetuates the 'good' genes (those which aid the survival of the
species). This process is called divergence. Divergence occurs as the species shifts under environmental
pressure toward a better fit with the environment. When the species is far superior to that required for basic
survival within a given environment, evolution does not remove deleterious mutations. These then
accumulate in the species gene pool, steadily degenerating the organism until it again comes in balance with
its environment, a balance which requires a high birthrate, high death rate, and a short life. This resultant
accumulation of harmful mutations is called evolutionary degeneration.
2.The degeneration of man as a species is already apparent.We now have Down's, muscular dystrophy,
early heart failure, fiends that rape and murder small children, etc. Over 7,000 genetic faults are catalogued.
If allowed to become more wide-spread, the genetic diseases now in our gene pool could end civilization.
No significant gene shift is required, only a continued multiplication of the genetic faults we already have.
3. The modern elitist method of arguing important cultural concepts, which they feel might lead to
something politically incorrect, is to ignore the search for truth and attack the bearer. This form of
argument shifts attention away from the concept and so interferes with its proper appraisal. This is
intellectual hypocrisy. In much the same manner as religious 'scientific' arguments twist reason to support
the dogma of creation, it appears that scientific investigation by the academic intellectual elite starts with a
politically correct view. They excuse this by saying that 'science must gain humanity in its work,' the
'humanity' being the current elite politically correct dogma.
The 'Degeneration of Man' was written in 1996. There have been many advances in knowledge about
genetics since then. The most recent study (1999) is one which bears out all of the discussion in this
text. Click here and read about the Eyre-Walker and Keightley study on human mutation rates.
The Design of Man Guarantees Extinction

In evolution, survival is the mark of success. If a life variation is a successful one, it allows that species to
survive. When it becomes unsuccessful, the species will become extinct. At first glance, this section title appears
contradictory. This comes about because there are degrees of success. A bare survival is considered success from
the viewpoint of evolution. Though precarious, the species that barely survives is in perfect balance with its
environment. It is neither superior nor inferior to its requirements. Its gene pool is maintained lean and free of
deleterious mutations. Man existed under those conditions for most of the past two million years. When man
developed agriculture, medicine, shelter, clothing and compassionate cultures, he, to a large extent, conquered
his environment. Mankind as a species became far superior to the new basic requirements for survival. Evolution
degenerates characteristics that are superior to those needed for survival. Mankind will thus degenerate until
again in balance with the new nature that he has created. Such degeneration will cause the collapse of society,
which is the mainstay for the new environment. So it will collapse also. The human, no longer equipped for the
old environment will perish under it.
DNA replication is an amazingly accurate process, but errors are sometimes made at a critical point during
organism reproduction. Such errors (mutations) will pass to future generations. These errors often effect the
Human Degeneration
ability of the new generations to withstand their environment. If the effect of the error is negative, and most are,
death and suffering (natural selection) will remove the carriers of those deficient genes. This combination of
mutations and elimination of most by death is called evolution.
Mutation provides all initial change. When a mutation occurs, a new allele (a new variation in a gene) is created.
As a first approximation, these accidents (mutations) are random (can occur at any location along the DNA),
although there are many alleles which are repetitive, indicating a mechanical propensity greater than chance. The
rate of these accidents is relatively constant within a given species.
If the accident occurs in a critical location (believed to be less than 10% of the total in man), the result is usually
disastrous. Other areas will accept change with no immediate consequence. Once made, and the first generation
survives past reproduction, the mutation is perpetuated and variability within the gene pool of the species is
increased.
Natural selection occurs when the viability of an allele is tested in real life. It makes only one test. Contrary to
popular opinion, evolution does not select the fittest, strongest, or most superior organism. It is instead a question
of how many offspring the organism will have which in turn will reach sufficient maturity to have its own
offspring. In other words, the figure of merit in the balance between mutation rate and environmental severity is
the percentage of new-born which live to become grand-parents.
If the effect is positive, the allele will become a permanent part of the gene pool. If the effect is very successful,
it will quickly become a dominant allele. If the effect is neutral or negative, the allele will not spread rapidly
through the gene pool and, usually, will disappear from the gene pool.
Evolution is not a planned process. It does no engineering. The end products were never visualized. No goals
exist. There is no thought of failure or success. There is no seeking of perfection. There is no seeking of
anything. Evolution does not do anything. It only happens. Mutations produce chaos with genetic accident after
accident, most of which are eventually fatal. Evolution uses misery and death to sort it all out. Evolution
produces the strongest organism when the organism is in absolute misery. Rapid and early deaths make
deleterious allele deletions quickly.
Evolution produces the worst possible organism that will still survive. Evolution has no goals. It does not seek
excellence. It does not seek creature comfort. The long term result of evolution is that a species is matched to its
environment, neither worse than required for bare survival nor better. Genes that describe characteristics that are
better than required in the current environment, will suffer the same mutation rate as any other. Since a mutation
which degrades a characteristic which is better than required will not distress the recipient, that deleterious
mutation will be acceptable to the gene pool of the species. The accumulation of such deleterious alleles will
continue until the organism is so bad that it begins to have difficulty surviving. Further degradation will be halted
at that point and there it will stabilize at the point of the maximum misery that can still be survived. If by chance
a mutation should improve an already superior characteristic, it in time will suffer the same fate.
Man, through his inventiveness and energy, conquered his environment through tools, housing, agriculture,
clothing, etc. This removed the environmental pressure which maintained our gene pool. Life is no longer totally
dependent on youth, eyesight, coordination, bravery, etc. As a result, a genetic cripple may bear crippled children
and they may all survive to endlessly propagate the crippling gene. Our species has already declined to below
that of survival in the environment of a short time ago, say 10,000 years. If our worldwide civilization should
Human Degeneration
fail, there would be massive death, and perhaps species extinction.

Since most mutations are deleterious, no species can afford to allow them to accumulate at a high rate in its germ
cells. In a species that exceeds the requirements of its environment and by that is increasing in population, there
is little natural selection pressure to remove degenerative alleles. Long life and a rising population are direct
indications that our species exceeds the requirements of our current environment. Those same factors indicate the
rate of degeneration within our gene pool.
It is a common belief that this degeneration is quite slow, requiring many millions of years before becoming a
real problem. Not so.
The Species Uniformity Test of Gene Pool Maintenance

A measure of how well natural selection is working in keeping the gene pool of a given species lean, is the
amount of variation in outward appearance. The Thompson gazelle has a genetically small population subjected
to a uniformly harsh environment. Line up 100 gazelles and see 100 peas from the same pod. Stand on a street
corner and watch 100 humans walk past and the opposite is true. No two look alike. It would seem that we were
watching a mixture of many species walk past. When new species are derived by evolution under a harsh
environment, they are superior to those they replace. When derived under a benign environment, new species are
inferior versions of the old.
10,000 years ago, the human was as uniform as the gazelle. He lived against a harsh environment. His population
was stable, even with a high birth rate, and the average age at death was in the low thirties. Diversity is a buzz
word which puts a spin on truth, since it is a measure of the degradation of the human gene pool, and that
degradation is visible. Most of that degradation would have occurred in the last 1,000 years.
An Estimate of Gene Pool Degeneration

Gathering the facts as we know them today:
Several methods may be used to measure the mutation rate in DNA replication. All seem to converge on a
rate of about one mutation in one billion base pair replications. Since these figures are found by studies of
mutations in living organisms, the corrections due to DNA repair and early failure are already considered.
These were survivable mutations.
The human genome consists of about three billion base pairs, of which about 10%, or about 300 million,
is considered critical. Since mutations in the 'nonsense' areas probably do not contribute to immediate
death and suffering, then 300 million base combinations are at great risk. If we later find that these
'nonsense' areas are in fact critical, then our degenerative problem is increased by that amount.
On the average, therefore, a mutation will occur in a critical area in about 30% of all conceptions. The
recipients of most mutations in these areas will perish before themselves giving birth. Most will be
aborted naturally or die in infancy.
The population of the world is about five billion.
Human Degeneration
With an average life expectancy worldwide of about 60 years, it is estimated that we have an annual
world wide effective (will live to bear children) birthrate of about 80 million per year.
Therefore, there are about 27 million mutations in the critical areas each year. Since there are few viable
variations, those will be repeated in the population.
With 300 million base pairs in the critical area, and 27 million mutations occurring each year then every
possible mutation will occur on the average every 11 years
As alleles collect in the gene pool, more and more variation will occur in the species. Where under strong
evolutionary forces, only three or four versions of a particular characteristic are allowed, under lack of
evolutionary maintenance (elimination through death) there may be hundreds.
Since all mutations have an equal opportunity in the gene pool, and only two variables can exist in each
individual, and modern transportation will cause a complete genetic mix during that time, it should be
expected that each deleterious allele that exists today will gain its share of the population in about 50
generations (1000 years). Add to that the 27 billion deleterious mutation repeats that will be added to the
gene pool during that period. Remember that this descent started more than a thousand years ago,
although the rate of descent is much higher today.
Discussion:
With 21 million mutations each year spread across 300 million base pairs, every possible viable mutation is
likely to occur once in each 11 years. These would remain in the gene pool until natural selection removed them.
This bears out a recent report that more than 7,000 genetic disorders in the gene pool of the human genome have
been cataloged (and we still do not have any idea what the purpose is of most genes). This figure must be vastly
understated. Not one mutation in one thousand would be so obvious as to require medical inquiry. The huge third
world populations are not included in the study. There must be far more than ten million lesser, but still
degenerative, mutations in the gene pool presently. Essentially none of these would be found in the gene pool of
ancient man, 100,000 years ago. The population was much smaller then and the environment was much harsher.
This gave natural selection the ammunition it needed to keep the gene pool lean. Even as recent as 10,000 years
ago, man's population was quite small and his living conditions quite harsh. Few alleles existed in his gene pool.
It is true that each member of the species does not feel the impact of the millions of degenerating alleles now in
the gene pool. Nor will anyone suffer all of them at once. It takes a very long time for a mutation to propagate
across the immense gene pool of man, and the genome of the individual is limited to two sets of alleles.
Nevertheless, those defects are in the gene pool and so will eventually share in the population with the current
gene set. It is a gene pool that does not undergo natural selection. This is an impossible situation. Never before
has a species been so successful that it has essentially halted the natural selection in its species. The result is a
species that will degenerate in time to the point when natural selection can again become operative. It took man
4.5 million years to develop. The actual percentage of mutations that are beneficial is unknown. It is believed
that the percentage is quite small. Not many students of evolution would expect more than one per thousand. If
that were true then the degeneration of our species, since natural selection is removed, would be more than one
thousand times faster than its development (again verifying that the problem time is in thousands rather than
millions of years as many believe).
The huge population is a two-edged sword. A huge population slows the apparent degeneration. It would also
slow the regeneration of the species, if we can figure out how to correct it. The human gene pool is huge. It acts
Human Degeneration
as a big tank, one in which a little garbage can grow to a huge disaster.
The Human Combination of Instinct and Intellect is Species Deadly

The unique feature of the human, when compared with all other forms of life, is its intellectual ability. When the
species first appeared, it lived in a harsh and demanding environment. Its intellect greatly helped its adaptive
ability, and therefore its ability to survive. It allowed mechanical inventions, such as fire, tools, clothing, shelter,
etc., which solved many of the harsh features of the environment, improving both survivability and comfort..
The survival advantages of intellect are in its ability to control the instincts. Instinct is relatively fixed and lacks
fast adaptability to changes in environment, such as when a species migrates into a new environmental niche.
Intellect, by controlling the instincts of the species, is able to make quick behavioral adjustments. Mankind,
though primarily a tropical animal, was thereby able to populate the earth, even into the remotest arctic regions.
The modern human species came into existence with strong social instincts. These were a legacy from two
million years of Homo erectus and Homo habilis. They in turn had inherited a prior two million years of herd/
tribal cultural living from prior hominid species. Hominid cultures are, have been, and always will be driven by
those strong social instincts.
There is no conflict between intellect and instinct when intellect is applied to mechanical problems, but there is
conflict between intellect and instinct when intellect is applied in the social sphere. For intellect to work in
human culture it must control individual social instinct. If intellect is to contribute to culture it must augment
some instincts and diminish the effects of others. Individual behavior within a culture becomes controlled by the
application of intellect over the community rather than relying on the individual to instinctively behave in the
right manner.As it does so, it negates the influence of instinct on the culture.
Evolution degenerates characteristics not screened by the environment. If instincts are controlled by intellect,
they no longer need to breed true, since the intellect will dictate proper behavior. The originally strong social
instincts will, in time, become degenerate and perverted. As these instincts degenerate, it becomes more and
more necessary to enforce community rules for proper behavior. The evolutionary spiral continues to develop
more and more perverted instinctive behaviors as stronger and stronger offsetting enforcement measures are
required to obtain an orderly community. These stronger behavioral enforcement measures will continue to grow,
while the individuals in the community develop less and less tolerance, until a point is reached when the
individuals in the community rebel. At that point the intellectual restraints are no longer effective, the now
perverted and degenerate social instincts are allowed full sway, and the society teeters on the brink of collapse. If
it should collapse, the human, now with distorted social instincts, would be unable to survive.
In Conclusion:
How fast does a mutation spread in a gene pool? Under a tight evolutionary process (high birthrate, high
death rate, severe environmental stress, short average life) the deleterious mutation is discarded from the
gene pool almost as fast as it occurs. When the evolutionary stress is removed, all mutations, good and
Human Degeneration
bad, have the same dispersion rate throughout the gene pool. Temporarily, the life span jumps and the
population jumps. This abnormally low stress life will then decay until controlled by evolution again, if the
species is allowed time to adjust to the new conditions. Unfortunately in the case of man, the downturn in
capability can result in sudden societal collapse. The shock due to such huge environmental shift would
most likely cause the species to become extinct.
If man is to survive, he must begin immediately to control both birthrate and birth
genetic quality.
A RECENT SCIENTIFIC ANNOUNCEMENT

DNA from a Neanderthal skeleton is giving powerful backing to the theory that Neanderthals were an
evolutionary dead end. In comparing 378 base pairs of the Neanderthal's mitochondrial DNA to that of
modern humans, the researchers found an average of 27 differences between modern and Neanderthal
DNA -- far more than the typical variation of eight among modern humans.
COMMENT:
Since it has been otherwise determined that modern man originated about 200,000 years ago, and 8
survivable mutations in the mitochondrial DNA are found in this 378 base pair sample in modern man,
then the mutation rate must be about two mutations in 10(exp 6) base pair replications? This rate is about
250 times that published in academic texts. With the much smaller size and far less folding complexity,
one would expect mitochondrial DNA to be far more stable in replication than nuclear DNA.
.
An aside that comes to mind as a result of the 'Degeneration of Man' text: There have been several
times in history when a large set of the existing species have disappeared. Scientists have postulated
several disasters that might account for this. The latest die-off, that of the dinosaurs, has been theorized as
being the result of a giant meteorite impact, possibly on the Yucatan peninsula. Is it possible that it was
times of plenty that caused these species annihilations, as opposed to disasters? If weather should have a
long term cycle providing copious food, species would expand without limit while degenerating mutations
collected in their gene pools. Species degeneration under such conditions may be quite rapid. Once past a
critical balance, and a down turn in food supply, available food would be over-grazed quickly causing
mass starvation and thereby species annihilation essentially over-night. Could this be the fate of mankind?
Our population is growing without control. We are not maintaining our gene pool and nature has resigned
from the job. The degradation in man is already apparent. The critical point between the size of our
population and the amount of grazing available is near. Will we be able to cope?
Evolution in Brief
Evolution
There is a terrible misconception about evolution that is universal. It comes from a semantic quirk, started with
Darwin himself, and is (oddly) supported by the ideologies of both the religious and the secular humanist. One
must remember that the writings of Darwin, along with all of the philosophy written prior to 1954, were
formulated based on observations of organisms. The molecular study of the basic mechanisms in the process of
evolution did not begin until the helix construction was discovered in 1954, and in fact the bulk of the knowledge
is only now (1999) developing, primarily as the result of the genome project .
Evolution, it is said, is a matter of survival of the fittest.
This belief, although it has a very small element of truth in it, is greatly misleading. It gives the idea that
evolution is, somehow, a positive process, one that develops superior organisms such as the strong, virile,
intelligent human (that kind of thinking makes it easy to believe). The human, in its ego, believes itself to be a
superior creature, and since it is a product of evolution, then evolution must be wonderful.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
The religious, faced with mounting evidence about evolution, seek to find God's hand in it and so, grasping at
straws, it is easier for them to accept evolution if it should be a process which seeks to build a higher (more
Godlike?) creature. The secular humanist, lacking real knowledge and rejecting religious dogma, turns to the
philosophers for answers, none of whom, frankly, have a clue. Even the most atheistic philosopher will expound
greatly, even while claiming independence from the spiritual, on the intrinsic (spiritual?) values of the human
and the glories of the life force (God?) called evolution and how true intelligence (like his?) is somehow a
magical (spiritual?) parameter of the human neural system and is the central aspect of human life.
Neither approach to evolution has a shred of real supporting evidence. But the mechanism of evolution, in its
general form, is becoming well known.
The basic elements of evolution:
1. A DNA string, one which describes a surviving organism, suffers accidents in its replication. These
accidents are not planned, there are no goals, and there is no compassion for the organism. These
mutations are, pure and simple, mechanical mistakes in replication of the DNA string. Since the string is
the description of an organism, one which is complex in construction, the DNA string is also highly
complex. The mutation acts as a random tuning of a string in a piano. Rarely will a random tuning result
in a better sound. Usually a random tuning ruins that key for playing music. Enough of them on the piano
ruins the piano. Mutations, being almost chaotic, are hardly Godlike, or spiritual in any way. Neither are
they reasonable in any manner.
2. The now-deformed organism is born. The world it enters has certain requirements for survival. Different
file:///C|/onelifebook/ethics/noteevol.html (1 of 3)1/25/2007 4:50:58 PM
Evolution in Brief
organisms have developed in different environmental niches. If the modified organism is able to survive
its deformity in its particular environmental (which in most organisms includes a social environment as
well) then the mutation is perpetuated, if not, the deformity is removed through suffering and death.
Borderline deformities diminish the comfort of the strain, sometimes to the point of requiring many
generations of suffering before finally succumbing to environmental pressures. This is a ghastly, cruel and
inhuman process.
3. If the organism is in balance with its environment, it will suffer a high mortality rate. This high mortality
rate is necessary in order to keep the accumulation of deformities at a low enough level for the species to
survive. The human, for example has about three critical area mutations per birth. About half of these will
survive in the gene pool. If the environment is too severe for the organism to survive (the mortality rate is
too high) then the organism will become extinct. If the mortality rate is too low, the deformities will
accumulate in the species gene pool, diminishing the species ability to survive, until it reaches balance
again. The human, as a result of its intellect, has solved many of its survival problems through
compassionate cultures, housing, clothing, agriculture, animal husbandry, medicine and other technology.
As a result it has tampered with its environment, allowing longer lives, more individual comfort and a toohigh population growth. Any mutation that survives birth is now propagated throughout the human gene
pool, since we have effectively removed the cleansing effect of the environment. Deleterious mutations
are accumulating in the human gene pool. Since the human is now dependent on the technology of its
society, if it should degenerate to the point of societal collapse, the entire species would likely become
extinct.
In summary:
Although there is an element of truth in the idea that evolution provides a survival of the fittest, that factor is only
an extremely small part of the process. It is true that the occasional mutation that provides benefit to a species is
readily accepted into the species gene pool, but those mutations that harm human survival far far outnumber
those that help. The major effect of evolution toward species survival is the removal of deleterious mutations.
Unfortunately, the method evolution uses for this cleansing, death and suffering, is terrible. In seeking relief from
this aspect of evolution, the human, by removing a large part of the environment, now lives under a one-sided
evolution in which the same rate of mutations (deformities) still occur but the cleansing effect of the environment
has been largely nullified.
A final note:
Since the elements of the human neural system are also subject to evolution, evolutionary forces
(mutation, environment) apply to the neural system in precisely the same manner that they do to the
physical body. They affect both the intellect and the instincts. Since the evolution of human culture is
tightly interwoven with human evolution, it, also, suffers the same malady.
TOP
RETURN TO HUMAN PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS INDEX

Evolution in Brief
Fact, Knowledge and Theory

BACKGROUND
SYMBOLS, NOT REALITY
MAKING DO
THE THOUGHTFUL PROCEDURE
BEING CULTURALLY OBJECTIVE
WHAT IS A FACT?
LOGIC AND REASONING
VERIFICATION BEFORE APPLICATION
Background
The basic nature of evolution is that it is a process which depends on error (see Evolution). If there were no
accidents (many of which are random) in DNA replication, there could be no evolution. All life forms suffer a
small amount of chaotic change in the birth of their young (about three per birth in the human). Almost all of
these changes degrade the organism. Only a few occur in critical locations. Most of those offspring that receive
these critical mutations are so wounded that they die immediately. Others suffer from their affliction and either
die before having young of their own or die before rearing their young to self-sufficiency. The balance of the
mutations, unless culled by the environment, will collect in the species gene pool. Only occasionally does an
offspring receive a mutation that tends to improve its survivability and that of its following strain. If the
environment shifts, then the direction of the evolution must shift also. Remnants of these shifts remain in the
DNA. In studying human construction, it appears that the ancestors of the human were aquatic animals at one
time, arboreal at another, and once nocturnal.
Evolution is a non-thinking and non-reasoning process. It has no plans or goals. It does not seek perfection It
seeks nothing. It happens. It is an extremely cruel process since its mechanisms are accident, suffering and death.
Its products were not designed, they resulted. Such a process develops an organism with afflictions, barely able
to survive.
It has been said that if a million monkeys pounded on a million typewriters, they would, in time, produce the
works of Shakespeare. If, as they produced garbage, fragments of Shakespeare that appeared were saved as the
basis for work from that moment on, the monkey process would be quite similar to evolution. That is precisely
how the human species was produced. It took four billion years. That is also how the human brain was developed.
The human brain, the very one that we are so proud of (arrogant about), is a result of this idiot process. It
contains enough ability so that the human has survived (so far). It has slip-shod and highly selective memory. It
file:///C|/onelifebook/ethics/fact.html (1 of 9)1/25/2007 4:50:59 PM
has the reasoning mechanism of a predator and enough intellect for a primitive social order in a small tribe (see
The Human Brain).
Diversity, a darling doctrine of the academic elite (PC), is partially the result of the degenerative collection of
alleles in the human genome resulting from an evolution crippled by human intervention and partially from tribal
isolation when the human population was much smaller and transportation more primitive. It results from DNA
divergence (variable allele collections in the genome). The result of this divergence is a large spread in form
characteristics in the species. Such things as height, weight, color of eyes, color of skin, texture of hair, etc., vary
widely across the species. That same divergence exists in the neural mechanisms. The same bell curve that
describes the distribution of IQ in the human species also exists in all of the other cultural instinctive
characteristics (parental love, compassion, aggression, cooperation, anxiety, tribal loyalty, sexual drive, etc.).
Variations in social characteristics are so wide that the overall species must be protected with armies, police,
court systems and a prison system that can hold a significant portion of the species.
The human brain is far from a perfect device. Most people will be able to survive with the one they received. A
few will not. A very few others provide all of the invention and leadership. Though quite error prone, the human
brain can be quite useful if held under strict control. Left to its own devices, driven only by the human base
instincts, it produces a dangerous clod, a human that is more a part of the problem than the solution.
So we have a complex problem (species survival) and a makeshift tool (the human brain) we must use to solve it.
TOP
Symbols, Not Reality

Obviously when we think of the moon, there isn't enough room in the skull for it. We can't use the real thing in
our thoughts. So we think of it by using a symbol in our brains, one that represents the moon. That symbol
substitutes for the real thing, but it is totally unlike the real thing. When the moon is considered, however, it is
not the symbol alone that we feel. The moon symbol also carries emotions with it: smells, moods and feelings.
So the moon symbol is not only a distorted view of the real thing, it carries other baggage also, baggage which is
often in the way in the current use of the symbol. And, we see only the front half of anything.
Worse still, the symbol we use comes from a seeing mechanism which also has a lot of limitations. Due to the
collection of adverse alleles in the human gene pool, there is a large variance (diversity) across the human
population in the accuracy of the seeing mechanism. We also do not see in a continuous way. The sensing
surface is divided into pixels, small increments of the sight. These are then reassembled and processed in order to
form symbols of the things we see. Due to our nocturnal heritage, the seeing surface in our eyes are wrong side
out, the seeing elements in effect filter a part of what we see. And the list goes on.
Usually, though, we are not looking at the moon when we are thinking about it. Its symbol may be brought to our
attention from a spoken or read word. This is a case of one symbol calling for another symbol, not the most
accurate way in the world to do anything. The moon may also be visualized from memory, a case of an imperfect
representation of an imperfect symbol from an imperfect memory.
So we receive our information through imperfect senses and convert it to imperfect symbols, which we
manipulate through an imperfect neural system which is biased by a hodgepodge of emotions and instincts.
Hardly an ideal system for solving anything, much less the design of a complex intellectual culture for a complex
creature with a defective reasoning system further hampered by delusions of genius.
TOP
Making Do
So if things are this bad, how do we get by? The answer is simple. We have a marvelous reactive neural system
for killing tigers (or each other) and solving the day to day survival problems, the tenacity for surviving harsh
environments (be they social or climate) and enough of us have enough kids to more than make up for the losses
(the excess children being another human idiocy). An intellectual creature by nature? Bah! Humbug!
To sum it up: the human is a survival creature with a very weak intellect and a very strong set of instincts.
And that's why we have wars, poverty, hunger, neural disease, bigotry, terrorists, criminals, greedy self-centered
leaders, and the list is endless. As a species, we'd like to get rid of this stuff. To do so can't be business as usual.
The first thing we must do is to recognize the frailty of the mechanism that we must use.
Anyone who believes for an instant that any human is capable of
creating
truth in its own mind without reference to reality is a dangerous fool.
It has been said that it is a poor worker who blames the sharpness of his tools. So how does an artisan use a
defective and inadequate tool? The answer is: very carefully.
TOP
The Thoughtful Procedure

The computer age has been enlightening. In designing programs (defining procedures) for the processing of
information, two lessons emerged at the very beginning:
1. It is quite easy to get the computer to do what you want it to do. It is quite difficult to keep the
computer from doing what you don't want it to do. The simplest procedure may have horrendous
side effects. This is a lesson that is seemingly impossible for the social engineers to understand.
2. Garbage in - garbage out. The computer is not magical. It can manipulate the input data it receives
and provide the information in new and more useful forms but it can't create anything that is not in
that received information. The human brain is also an information processor - and it is far more
imaginative and not nearly as precise. It also is not magical. If it is to provide useful output, it must
be given truthful and complete input.
The intellectual tool that is available for the modern human was developed over the history of the human by
the artisan and engineer, not the philosopher, not the academic. This tool has supplied the entire technology
of our present world. It is despised by the politically correct and the religious alike. It could be called
'objective intelligence', and it simply calls for four steps in the thinking process:
1. No matter the problem, self (the human emotions and instincts) must be removed from the
problem, even though they may be the cause of the problem. Factual, measurable and verifiable
goals with acceptable tolerances must be defined.
2. Premises must be factual (garbage in - garbage out).
3. Reasoning must be simple and direct and must include side effects. If reasoning and logic
require multiple steps, divide the problem into smaller and smaller segments until each one
results in simple reasoning.
4. Conclusions must be proven. The major effort in this verification process must be toward
disproving the conclusions and in diligently hunting for deleterious consequences.
It took the human two million years to find this out and most don't know it yet.
Immediately, there are severe problems. In the very first step, how does one define an objective problem from
subjective needs and desires? In the second step, with the known deficiencies in the human senses and neural
system, how can one be sure that the premises are actual fact? In the third step, how can a complex problem be
segmented? In the fourth step, how and when must conclusions be tested? Each of these will now be covered.
TOP
Being Culturally Objective

Technology thought is objective. Goals, processes, procedures, timetables, etc. may all be assigned without
recourse to human instinct. Cultural thought, conversely, is by nature emotional. Building a schoolhouse falls
under technology. Building a school curriculum, a philosophy of teaching, teacher requirements, or establishing
the student behavioral level rarely escapes heated controversy. Yet these are far more important as a part of the
school infrastructure than the building. If these were correct, the school could be held in a barn, or in an open
field, weather permitting.
Instead we now design specialized schools for particular communities. A suggestion of uniform testing brings
great ire from the educators. And we experiment with every crack-pot scheme that comes along, using our
children as laboratory guinea pigs.
If the human is to ever have a culture that offers equal opportunity for life satisfaction to each, the infrastructure
of that society must be uniform. Certain groups of people must not be singled out for unique treatment. Others
should not get particular favors. And others should not be deprived of equal opportunity. Uniformity and equality
become required parameters for any universal function. This can only be obtained by adopting widespread
standards. Those standards become a part of the infrastructure that every person can depend on. These can't be
established subjectively, where the plight of each and every social group has separate planning. And those
standards must be developed objectively (without subjective reference).
How can this be done? Admittedly, it is an extremely difficult task in a culture which caters to the individual. But
then the cultural infrastructure should not be fashioned for the individual, it should be fashioned for the welfare
and advancement of the species. It should not specify what fits the individual, but what will be the best for the
welfare and advancement of the species.
Modern people will object strongly to such an idea, in fear of losing personal freedom. This should not be. A
cultural infrastructure only contains those social functions which must be uniform, such as the basic requirements
for justice, education and governance and minimum living standards. Individual freedoms which do not conflict
with species welfare would still be optional.
This then is the objective approach. To group all mankind into one tribe. To ignore current ethnic and racial
divisions. To establish goals, procedures, processes and timetables for the species, leaving open the individual
freedoms required for personal satisfaction. Then build the necessary cultural functions to meet these objectives.
And, finally, vow to be patient, caring and forgiving during the transition. So it takes 500 years. These are
species matters, and the species, we hope, is immortal.
TOP
What is Fact?
The validity of a fact (concept, theory) as used as basis in a particular argument is a matter of judgement.
The utility of a fact extends through the argument and becomes a portion of the argument conclusion
(solution). The truth of the conclusions of an argument can not exceed the truth contained in the basic
premises.
A fact is a statement used in a particular context that can't be refuted through physical evidence within that
context. The statement "The earth is flat." is factual if the context of the problem concerns building a street
through a village. It is not factual if the context of the problem concerns laying out a great circle path for a long
distance aircraft flight. The statement "Water is wet." holds up quite well for drinking, bathing or floating a boat.
It fails miserably if the temperature is above boiling or below freezing. "One plus one equals two." is only true
under certain special circumstances, such as two glasses of water at the same temperature, under the same
atmospheric pressure, etc., but is quite a useful concept within those restrictions. It is not necessary to "know all
there is to know" about something in order to declare it a fact. It is only necessary to prove sufficient knowledge
within the context of that particular argument.
Care must be taken, however, when an argument is a segment in an overall argument of a much larger context. In
this case, the facts used as basis in any sub-argument, must be true over the entire context of the overall
argument. This is the major logical trap in the segmentation of complex arguments, especially in cultural
concepts. The example of "The earth is flat." is useful only within its limited context. It fits the design of the
aircraft hangar, for example, but if it should be extended to and become a part of the calculation of the great
circle path for the aircraft to fly then it becomes an erroneous premise leading to an erroneous conclusion.
There is a practical argument against allowing "too much knowledge" about a fact or theory. Newtonian physics,
for example, is considerably modified by Einstein's relativity. If one is planning a trip to Alpha Centauri at half
light speed then the concepts of space/time/mass modification due to the effects of relativity must be taken into
account. In terms of an earth bound trip, the extra and unnecessary complication of relativity calculations could
add considerably to the asset cost of the trip.
Background basis for all statements of theory or fact (knowledge) in OneLife are given in the 'Evolution and
Genetics' background knowledge section. Sufficient basis has been sought in these studies for application within
the context of a human culture on earth. No attempt has been made to be exhaustive, the necessary complication
is more than enough. Any further complication would make it less understandable. Every attempt has been made
to be accurate, within the context limitations. Have mistakes been made? Undoubtedly! We seek the help of the
readers to root out any mistakes, inconsistences, and, yes, any unnecessary complications.
A defined concept that is basic to OneLife is "A fact or theory must have real basis." It must be observable in
some way. The more observations that exist which are supportive, the more observable it is and the more
confidence exists in its truth. However, no matter how many supporting observations exist, the fact ceases to be
one as long as a single unexplained observation to the contrary exists. This definition also limits the facts that
may be used as premises for an argument. It specifically denies and forbids the use of an intangible premise.
Logic and reason make no sense when based on such premises.
A basis for useful knowledge, therefore, lies in the following four statements:
1. The universe is real.
2. The earth is real.
3. Life is real.
4. The human is real.
Solution to any problem is dependent on the underlying knowledge. If there is insufficient knowledge, one may
never be sure about the truthfulness of any conclusions drawn.
TOP
Logic and Reasoning

The best laid plans of mice and men...
Cultural planning is extremely complex. Without species goals and behavioral standards it becomes impossible.
These, then, become the first priority (see A Philosophy for goals and A Basis for Morality for behavioral
standards). Once these are established, the work starts.
It is customary in technology to highly segment a complex problem. Each of these segments receives its own
data and has its own procedure, timetable and goal specification. The goal specification of a lower segment, once
verified through measurement, then becomes the input data for the next segment, etc. When, not if, a verification
failure is found, the direction is reversed until the source of the failure is found.
Professional philosophers have developed an intricate and extensive knowledge base in formal logic, much in the
same manner as professional mathematicians in the field of mathematics. Both are invaluable in research. Both
extend the horizons of human acquisition of intellectual concepts, many of which can then be developed for
species utility. Both must be used with caution in practical matters. Not that they are wrong, mind you, it's that
dependence on them can, in many cases, cause unnecessary project failure. It is far safer, though a bit longer, to
segment the problem into small, logically simple segments, then verify each, than to proceed through logical
steps to completion where verification failure would mean starting all over.
Logic and reason, as applied to practical matters, are extremely difficult even on the most objective of projects.
No matter how hard we try, subjective thought creeps in. Wanting a project to end in a particular way can bias all
of the work along the way. Even striving too hard for success can turn a doomed project into a catastrophe.
The application of logic and reason in cultural matters is orders of magnitude more difficult. Human instincts
arise in righteous indignation at every step, fighting tooth and claw to make sure that the final answer is
emotionally compatible. Modern scientists learn their trade in an academic elitist (PC) social atmosphere.
Science and dogma do not mix well. Even modern hard science is regularly distorted and truncated to safeguard
egalitarian ideology. A new and widespread movement among scientists is to "humanize" science, by insuring
that science does not threaten the world government, multicultural, egalitarian ideology. This is scientific
hypocrisy at its worst.
TOP
Verification Before Application

The most important function in the development process is verification. Testing the final product against its
starting specification can discover all of the fuzzy thinking, faulty premises, poor reasoning, errors in scope,
mistakes in design and specification, subjective bias, etc. before damage is done. No cultural forming idea should
ever be installed into society without exhaustive tests.
Verification is a function that has been completely ignored by educators, bureaucrats, academics, politicians, and
other self-styled social engineers. It has become traditional that if an idea sounds good and fits modern social
dogma, it is slammed into the culture. When it fails, it is crutched with another that is twice as bad. No sane
engineer would ever allow an untested part in an airplane, an act that might endanger a few hundred but any harebrained idea by one of the education philosophers becomes a fad that is tried out on millions of school children.
The senseless concept of whole language, for example, ignored the human brain construction (see Whole
Language). Millions will never read or understand written language as well as they could, all to appease the egos
of pop education philosophers, on an idea that sounded good, met the requirements of egalitarian ideology, but
failed to include full and factual premises. In spite of widespread controversy, this concept has still never been
tested under controlled conditions.
Verification of the soundness of a cultural idea must also include side-effect analysis, a completely unknown
concept in modern culture. Human culture was formed by evolution, an idiot process, as was the human genome.
Ninety-five percent or more of the human genome is genetic garbage. Human culture, formed over the same
period and by the same forces, is likely as contaminated. Human society is extremely fragile and volatile. A
seemingly innocuous change could result in a domino effect, causing irreparable damage to the species. Many
such may have already been introduced. One of the most senseless of all human practices is to allow one segment
of society to dictate under uncontrolled conditions the cultural characteristics of all others. The academics now
have that control. Not only do they have that control, it is under conditions of positive feedback, one which
allows error to grow without limit. See Education Dynamics for a description of this pernicious social practice.
Education is a sound idea, but there are side effects which must be planned for and controlled.
"But culture is too complex," some will say, "to ever be able to test a social change ahead of time." The answer is
obvious. If the change is so nebulous that it can't be tested, then it's too risky to put into effect.
TOP
Philosophy Based on Genetics
A Philosophy
A philosophy is a natural product of the intellect. Every human has a philosophy by which it lives, an
intellectual declaration of a personal relationship with all other life, a statement of expectations and
obligations, a pronouncement of self. That philosophy furnishes the very basis for personal behavior, and
it establishes the value of a human to itself and all other life.
Early humans used spiritual guidance. Every tribe had its own version. Primitive tribal philosophers
premised supernatural beings who demanded certain behaviors and promised swift and severe
punishment for infractions. Later philosophers premised their ilk as superior beings who had the ability to
create truth from within their own minds. Such philosophers, though many were intellectually gifted,
forsook reality, believing the human mind can transcend observation. They created philosophy through
their own conjecture and imagination, building great intellectual castles on highly questionable
foundations. Most modern philosophers synthesize their philosophy from the tenets of their elitist ideology
(PC).
But the universe is real, life is real, and the human is real. The philosophy of the human should be real
also. What makes a philosophy real? There is a simple test. If the logic which supplies a philosophical
expectation or behavioral conclusion is based on verifiable fact, it is likely to be real. The shorter the chain
of logic from the provable premise, the more apt the conclusions are true. If the logic has no real basis (is
based on dogma), its conclusions, though possibly true, are likely to be at least misleading and are
probably false. All existing philosophies are based on dogma.
An alternative is presented: a philosophy developed directly from real knowledge, in most cases with a
single logical step. This philosophy is dynamic. It adjusts to new knowledge as it is developed. It gives
purpose, direction and reason to life. It supplies a basis for human moral and ethical conduct. It includes
the entire ecosystem.
INTRODUCTION
AN ASSESSMENT OF HUMAN VALUE
CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION
Every human is a philosopher. Each has its own unique viewpoint of its position in and relationship with the
universe, and all other things within it. The basis for that viewpoint is the particular genetic instinctive
file:///C|/onelifebook/ethics/philos.html (1 of 11)1/25/2007 4:51:00 PM
configuration (see The Human Brain) of that individual. This basic set of drives and moods are relatively fixed
within the individual throughout its life. The behavior resulting from these instincts, however, is intellectually
modified by the application of experience (training, education and direct experience). These individual composite
(instinct and intellect) philosophies are quite dynamic. Each philosophy changes with each bit of experience and
the behavioral response changes along with it.
The behavior of an individual at any point in time is the result of the application of its philosophy of life to the
current set of environmental conditions. The collective behaviors within a group, resulting from a summation of
the individual philosophies, is called its culture. A group culture requires a group philosophy. A group
philosophy is a subset of the individual philosophies, since it covers only those behaviors which the group
requires for community welfare, cultural advancement, cooperation and cohesion. Once these are satisfied, the
balance of possible personal behaviors become a matter of choice.
Imagination and conjecture are basic intellectual traits (genetically determined functional abilities) of the human.
Although these processes may be found in many of the other higher animals, they are emphasized in the human.
These traits developed through evolution, primarily among predators, for the rapid solution of immediate and
objective survival problems. Both consist of memory distortion mechanisms whereby a real scene in memory is
warped in order to visualize possibilities other than reality. Predators developed this capability for use in
predicting prey reaction. Quite complex intellectual functions provide the behavioral decision, since it will rest
on an analysis of the current scene, alternative imagined reactive scenes in which the prey takes various evasive
actions, and scenes from past memory allowing estimation of prey reaction time, evasive ability and speed.
Unique to the human, however, is the question that starts with why. Why do things work the way they do? Why
can't they be made to be some other way? Why can't this particular scene be modified for greater success?
So the human developed tools, clothing, shelter and weapons, first by visualizing then by building. If errors were
made, they were immediately obvious so they were quickly located and fixed. Imagination and conjecture are
wonderful tools for technology since very quickly and definitely it can be learned whether a given idea is
successful, or should be discarded. Wherever the results may be measured , imagination and conjecture are very
useful and can be used at will. The end measurement screens out the failures, hopefully before anyone gets hurt.
When did it start? Where in the development of the human did someone first look up into the sky at all the stars
on a dark night and ask: Why is this and how do I fit in? Whenever it was, and it was quite possibly almost two
million years ago with an early Homo erectus, it was a question without an answer. So he made one up. And
we've been doing it ever since. The only change in the entire period has been a shift from imaginary supernatural
beings who were all knowing and all powerful to an imaginary concept that man is supernatural and therefore
can create knowledge in his own mind without reference to reality. First it was various spirits and gods. Then it
was Aristotle, Kant and Marx. And now it is anyone with a Ph.D. who can also cite at least thirty others with the
same degrees in the same subjects and with the same academic elitist (PC) viewpoint.
The first Homo erectus who tired of the rigors and dangers of the hunt and found that it was easier and more
profitable to wear weird feathered costumes, burn evil smelling materials and chant gibberish while ordering
others around, started a line of work that has profited many to this day. Within a very short time these witch
doctors (shaman, spiritual leaders, psychologists, philosophers, politicians, etc.) began to believe their own
baseless conjecture. They still do to this day. The various story lines have shifted, but the methods and attitudes
remain unchanged. Without exception they are smug, righteous, and arrogant in their dogma. Every culture
contains a sizeable segment of these slick-talking free-loaders.

A few of the more objective and advanced members of this cult have begun to embrace genetics and evolution.
They point out, quite eloquently, that Darwinian evolution shows how human ethics have evolved during human
development and that it continues to evolve to this day. There are two recent texts on 'Darwinian natural right' :
The Biological Ethics of Human Nature by Larry Arnhart and Taking Darwin Seriously by Michael Ruse. Both
are interesting. The subject matter is much the same in both. Both authors are excellent in their research and in
their presentation. Both show how cultures evolved from a historical perspective, and either text is excellent.
Unfortunately, although Darwin visualized the evolution process, he did not have the knowledge of genetic
structure and function that we have today. He understood how form and function evolved from the standpoint of
the organisms but he was ignorant of the molecular process by which that evolution functioned. He could tell the
story of how it occurred in historical terms, but he had no inkling of the molecular mechanism and its functional
laws. The same applies for his profound ideas on the evolution of culture (where a culture is the collection of
behaviors - the ethics and morality - of a group).
With the ancient human, the same intellectual mechanism that was so successful in solving survival problems
was also used in approaching cultural problems. Early man had no way of differentiating between the objective
and subjective. Even today that concept is widely misunderstood. Tribes were growing larger and more culturally
complex. Culture became the same cut and try process as the evolutionary process which had formed the human.
A tribe that was governed well, regardless of the basis for the culture, survived. Others, even though they may
have been more thoughtfully governed, often failed. Cultural behaviors which provided tribal survival often
resulted in individual misery. There was no real basis for culture so dogma became the norm. Darwinian theory
became as applicable to human culture as it was to human form, in fact the two are so intertwined they appear to
be part and parcel of the same evolution. The result is that the same description may be applied to both the
human genome and the human culture. Apparently most of both are sheer garbage, collections of evolutionary
debris.
Genetic evolution is not a planned process. It has no goals, no purpose, and no plans. Through random changes
the organism is modified. Death and destruction is then used to sort out the defectives. A complex function
developed in this manner is riddled with errors and inconsistencies. There are more than 8,000 cataloged genetic
defects in the human genome - and the search is only beginning.
Cultural evolution is not a planned process. It has no goals, no purpose, and no plans. Through random changes
the culture is modified. Death and destruction is then used to sort out the cultural errors. A complex function
developed in this manner is riddled with errors and inconsistencies. There are no cataloged cultural defects in the
human culture - they are all accepted under the banner of multiculturalism, itself an intellectual abortion.
Neither process is intellectual (does not have goals or plans). Consequently the product of either process falls for
short of the desired. The history of both the form and culture of the human shows a chaotic evolution that was
mindless and without goal or purpose. It provided a cut and try process which thrived on death and misery.
Intellectual control of both gives the human species an evolution that is planned and reasoned, one which
provides the species with goals and fulfillment as opposed to blind survival. The human must gain that
intellectual control over both processes.
Darwinian cultural reasoning is that if one can follow the natural cultural development of the human, then one
can infer a natural morality. There are two major problems with this approach:
1. There is no known history on the cultural development of the modern human (Homo sapiens sapiens) for the
first 180,000 years or so. The only history available is within the past 5% of modern human existence, and even
the early half of that is very sketchy. There is every reason to believe that human culture is much older than even
that, being based on at least two million years of cultural development during the Homo habilis and Homo
erectus times. In fact it is quite likely that human society dates back to at least the days of Ramidus, about four
million years ago. When the first hominid ventured onto the plains, he could not have survived without a
complex tribal cooperative with strict divisions of responsibility and strong leadership.
2. It is very interesting to study how culture (behavioral rights and wrongs) developed under the combined
physical and social environment of the human over its development period. It is also interesting to speculate on
future forms if allowed to evolve naturally from the present condition into the cultural future. These have little to
do, unfortunately, with what our culture should be. Our ancient cultures were caricatures of what they should
have been. The human was developing, one cannot expect those cultures to be any more than they were primitive. The human developed from a brute. It's culture started with the brute also. To use these studies as a
basis for determining proper (moral, ethical) behavior for the modern human, however, is total nonsense. Such
study is only valuable if used for looking for cultural errors to avoid in the future.
What we must concentrate on is what the culture of the human (and therefore its proper individual behavior)
should be given the physical reality of its evolutionary mechanism and its fit in the universe. This concept
projects a cultural eugenics for the intellectual control of the evolution of culture in the same manner that
eugenics projects an intellectual control of the evolution of the human form.
The idiocy of allowing natural evolution to provide the human species with both form and culture must be
recognized. All of its form and cultural ills are caused by this idiot process. The human is intellectual and
therefore capable of analysis, goal setting, and planning. The human must work toward optimizing both its form
and its culture.
Biologists have learned to move from the organism to the molecular level in their analysis of life forms. The
form of the organism is controlled by the molecules in its DNA. Those who seek wisdom in the behavior of the
human must do the same. Once having ascertained the rules for proper behavior of the human through
determining the basic forces of life on a molecular level, an analysis of the history of culture from that viewpoint
is entirely different. It will show the direction and magnitude of human cultural error that was caused by the
natural (idiot) process of cultural evolution.
Only verifiable fact is acceptable as a basis for philosophy. Conjecture, imagination, fantasy, spirituality, fiction,
ideology, unbased philosophy or any other form of dogma must not be accepted as truth on which to base
philosophical reasoning and conclusions. The human is capable of discovering truth
TOP
AN ASSESSMENT OF HUMAN VALUE

Background
The religions provide a living philosophy. Ethical and moral behavior, within the teachings of the religion, are
clear. The member of a religious group who follows the teachings of the religion in all of its behavior is moral.
But many, and the numbers are growing, do not wish to follow religious dogma. Some feel that it is too
restrictive. Others believe that it conflicts with scientific knowledge to the point of absurdity. Then there are
always those who are not willing to follow any set of community rules. Religious leaders warn that the rejection
of religion will result in a cultural disintegration. Without religious belief, they claim, there is no restriction on
personal behavior. The human, they say, is prone to sin. It must have a reason not to sin. The religion, they insist,
gives a basis for living a moral life. Discard it and morality will disappear. This is obviously true. It is true
because when the religion is discarded and nothing takes its place, morality in behavior has no basis. The
American cultural degeneration of the past 60 years is sufficient evidence to believe so.
Every human is a philosopher. The philosophy of the member of a religious group is that of the religion. The
living philosophy of the individual comes in the religious package. He need not form his own. Acceptance and
faith is all that's needed. The religious philosophy provides not only the instructions for moral behavior but with
the reason for moral behavior, and it details the punishment that is certain if not followed. It establishes purpose
in life and proceeds with instructions on how to live it.
Other philosophies come from non-spiritual thinkers. The academic elitist ideology now prevalent is an
amalgamation of these. But the rank and file who are not religious have only a philosophy of instant gratification.
Without a living philosophy, it becomes every human for itself.
Fortunately, none of this need be. The nature that created us, by the very process of our creation, provides
us with very precise rules of living and an incredible purpose for being. No human should lack pride in
being. No human should lack for behavioral direction.
First, consider the past and present of the human and then look at the future possibilities.
The Past, a series of singularities

The natural order of the universe provides certain expectations. These expectations are not uniform. Some
occurrences are almost certain, most are quite common, others are rare, and a very few are very rare. A miracle, a
usually spiritual term, is an occurrence that would be totally unexpected. In mathematical terms, a miracle is an
occurrence with a probability of zero. A singularity, the more usual word for something unexpected, could be
described in mathematical terms as an occurrence with a very small probability. Singularities may be expected
within the natural order of the universe (they do happen) and some of those may be so singular as to approach a
probability of zero. The distinction between such a singularity and a miracle can become quite small, itself
approaching zero.
To the gambler, a singularity is a "long shot". He learns through experience that "long shots" are very difficult to
predict but they do happen, though rarely. Betting on the slowest horse to win, even though the payoff would be
huge, is expecting a singularity (and often being disappointed). The gambler also knows that even more rare than
predicting a "long shot" would be the prediction of two such "long shots" occurring in a fixed order, such as
predicting the slowest horse to come in first and the second slowest horse coming in second in the same race with
an all or nothing bet, .
So even though the opportunity is huge, such as the size of the universe, and the time period of that opportunity
is also huge, such as the time period during the fifteen billion years of the universe, one still would not expect
that several singularities (or miracles), each dependent on those before, would ever appear in succession. Yet that
is exactly what has happened.
It is generally believed that our universe began about fifteen billion years ago. That beginning has been
visualized in a number of ways but most think in terms of an explosive (sudden) singularity in space, matter and
time, one that, in fact, created space, matter and time. Before fifteen billion years ago there was no universe, no
space, no time and no matter. In fact the phrase 'before fifteen billion years ago" has no meaning because there
was no time then. There is no "before". At the first interval of time there was everything. There was no prior time
and even if there had been, nothing existed.
The birth of the universe is singularity number one.
The future is even more nebulous than the beginning. Some believe the universe will expand forever. Others
believe that it will expand, like the stretching of a huge spring, to some point in time in the future then fall back,
eventually passing through the eye of the needle from whence it came. All seem to see a future of at least another
35 billion years for the universe. As with the beginning, only speculation exists about the long term future.
Our sphere of some comprehension is the universe from its formation to about 35 billion years in the future. Our
immediate sphere of interest, and one in which we have a large amount of factual knowledge, starts with the
formation of the earth and extends until its demise, however that may happen. A philosophy which can cover that
period, one which is dynamic in its reception of real knowledge as quickly as it is developed, should be adequate
at the present time.
During the early life of the universe, matter was simple. Much of the matter in the universe is still simple. When
the suns formed they exerted great heat and pressure on the material in their centers. They became huge crucibles
for the construction of heavier and more complex matter. Our earth was formed about five billion years ago. It
was formed from the debris from an ancient sun that had lived its life and exploded long before. From this origin
came our heavy materials such as iron, carbon and lead, matter which can only be formed within the extreme
temperatures, pressures and heat within suns. The earth will live, barring collision with space debris or internal
explosion, until the demise of our sun. It is believed that our sun will be stable for another five billion years.
This earth that we accept as ordinary is quite unusual. It came from a recycling of matter, thereby containing the
heavier elements needed for life. It is the correct distance from a sun that has particular characteristics. It is a
correct size to hold an atmosphere and to contain surface water. Even in our own solar system there are no other
planets, or any other bodies of matter, which can naturally sustain life. Life, as we know it, is severely damaged
with any temperature above about 150 degrees F and loses function at about freezing. No other location in the
solar system can sustain life. Throughout a universe of extremes there are few locations that sustain that narrow
band of temperatures. Even with billions of suns in billions of galaxies, the occurrence of another earth would be
a singularity, one with an extremely low probability.
The occurrence of a 'perfect' planet as the birth place of life is singularity number two.
Life (DNA), the very same life that all living things share today (see OneLife ), happened about a billion years
after the formation of the earth. The odds against it ever occurring are staggering. The earth was an ideal place
for it to happen, with millions of cubic miles of free water, all saturated with complex chemicals, much of which
was at the proper temperature, and with an atmosphere filled with carbon dioxide. Under these ideal conditions it
took a billion years. It occurred only once, otherwise there would be many unrelated living strings of life. The
probability of it occurring even that one time is infinitely small, so small that the probability of it occurring
elsewhere in the universe is as small. Suddenly, as incredible as it sounds, an extremely complex form of matter
not only occurred, that alone was a singularity, but it became alive. Unlike the rock, it reproduced itself. It is
totally unlike all other matter in the entire universe.
This most singular of all is singularity number three, the birth of life.
In its beginning, life was fragile. It was so tiny that millions could fit on the head of a pen. It floated in a vast sea,
unknowing, completely helpless, without senses, without protection of any sort, and totally dependent on chance
for its nourishment and the extremely complex biological chemicals it needed for its replication. Yet it somehow
survived under these incredibly adverse conditions.
The survival of life is singularity number four.
Then came evolution, an unlikely cause and effect process (see Evolution), a process that cannot exist without
life and is therefore not visible in any other segment of the universe. Under the rigors of the evolutionary process,
life requires a delicate balance in its reproductive strength. Only a reproductively fragile life can evolve, one that
is easily bruised so that mutations will occur. Yet the reproductive process must be stable and strong enough for
the strain to continue to live even with mutations occurring that diminish its numbers. Since life, even at its
simplest, is very complex, most mutations will cause its death, the mutation acting as a wrench thrown into
complex machinery. Only rare mutations will allow the new offspring to live. Fewer even yet are the mutations
that aid in its survival. But some do and evolution begins anew with a new basis from which to evolve.
The simultaneous combination of an evolutionary process unique to life, a survivable environment, and a
life that can survive its own reproductive error is singularity number five.
Life, with its companion process evolution, produced millions of species (self-replicating biological survival
mechanisms) over the next four billion years. Millions of species exist even today. Random mutations provided
many possible forms. The environment selected those features and combinations of features that could survive.
Almost without exception, the survival features developed through evolution were effective survival tools only
within the environment on earth. All, however, provide almost equal survivability, else they would have perished
over these past four billion years and would not be visible today. Big teeth, claws, strength, ferocity, stamina,
tough skin, running speed, etc. are all valid tools for survival. There is no evolutionary mechanism for producing
a feature which allows more than needed for survival within the environmental niche of the organism. The nature
of evolution is chaos squeezed through an environmental filter. Evolution does not think or plan or set goals. It
does not seek perfection. It seeks nothing. It only happens. Its products may approach an ideal in survivability
with respect to a given environmental niche, but they will always fall far short of that ideal. In fact if an organism
should become better than required, its evolution is reversed and becomes degenerative. The only requirement
for an organism is that overall it is adequate to survive.

It took four billion years of evolution to develop the human (see The Evolution of The Human), and the human
has a characteristic that can transcend environment. Any environment. Anywhere in the universe. It is called
intellect. Admittedly, the modern human is far more animal than intellectual. It must constantly struggle to
overcome its animal qualities in order to make use of its intellect. Still, in the past, it has been able to do enough
with its intellectual strength, in spite of its instinctive frailties, to become the dominant species on earth (and
likely in the universe).
A very few other species will instinctively perform some acts that modify natural conditions (their environment)
for their own use. Only the human, however, has the threshold of intellect required for the planned modification
of natural processes. Since intellect is so scarce and there are so many other developmental means that insure
survivability, then intellect itself was an accident, an extremely rare accident.
The development of intellect is singularity number six.
The Present
This is where the human now stands, in this vast continuity of time, looking back at the past in wonder, and
trying to fathom the future. But the human and its intellect, is the center event in this chain of events, for it was
with the human that matter began to be shaped so as to have purpose and value. Before the human, all matter
blindly followed natural laws and processes. With the human came an entirely new function in the cosmos, the
function of altering and redirecting natural processes and materials to give them purpose and value. It started
with sharpening a stick to dig for roots and shaping a piece of stone to scrape a hide for use as clothing. It now
extends to an intricate procedure of mining the ore, smelting it to purity, and shaping it into a vessel that can
travel in space. Great rivers are now converted into giant machines that supply energy and water for millions of
people. A small inner piece of a sun has been recreated into a tool for great energy production (and great
destruction).
Before the human, survival was sought by many organisms, essentially all of the mobile biological mechanisms.
With these others, however, the drive for survival was instinctive, a mechanism developed within the organisms
by the relentless pressure of the evolution process. That same drive is still in the human, but with a new
component. Intellect now provides an understanding of the old need for survival along with a new concept: that
of species survival and the plight of all other forms of life in the ecosystem. The human realizes that even
survival on this earth is not the final answer. Life in total is in jeopardy. A wayward comet could eliminate the
fruits of four billion years of development in an instant. Unknown dangers lurk within the core of the earth itself.
A wayward maniac with all of the power modern man has invented at his disposal, could eradicate all of life with
but a touch of a button. Finally, the earth will someday be part of a brief but spectacular planetary nebula as the
sun dies. Life on earth will then come to an end. And if all of these should be avoided, there are other dangers as
yet unknown in the far distant future.
The human seeks survival and long term survival will require distribution of life throughout the universe. In the
final analysis, it also may require a complete redesign of the universe to insure its strength and stability.
The human species also has major problems within itself. Through its intellect it has virtually eliminated the
environmental element in its evolution equation. The resultant lop-sided evolution is now destructive as opposed
to developmental (see The Degeneration of Man). Even with huge growth in technological skills, human cultural
skills are decaying. Distorted form genetics are causing evermore survival problems requiring huge expenditures
of the assets of the species in remaining well enough to function as human beings. Distorted instinctive
mechanism genetics are stretching the human's ability to maintain civilization. More and more, force is required
to maintain order. Huge defensive armies, police organizations and prisons are even now required, and the
problem is worsening.
But the creative skills of the human species are only now awakening. The race is on. Will the human develop out
of these problems before it succumbs to them? That is the question.
The Future, new singularities invented by the human

The natural process called evolution is about to be transformed by the human. The human will gain engineering
control over the evolution process. No longer will the species suffer the death and misery caused by the
environment weeding out the defectives, nor will the species continue to suffer the degeneration and indignities
of a crippled evolution. Starting with the correction of all known genetic diseases, the human species will be the
first to be freed from the bondage of a cruel and senseless natural process, all other forms of compatible life will
follow soon after. Evolution will then be positive throughout the ecosystem, with every change made on the basis
of improvement. It will be steady, since each positive modification is included in the next platform for which
further improvement may be considered. All species will become dynamic, under constant upgrading.
The human intellect will be one of the major elements to be stabilized and improved. New neural mechanisms
will be invented. Hybrid assists will be developed to improve communications, memory and depth of knowledge.
The instincts will become conservative, strong and uniform. One generation may learn and allow the next
generation to learn better. The idea of species has been expanded to include a dynamic intellectual organism, one
that not only learns and understands, but one that can improve in those functions with each succeeding
generation.
The most amazing 'singularity' of all is now in process. The concept of an intellectual organism that
controls evolution, one that will redefine (redesign, redirect) itself and all other life, is incredible, but it
will be implemented and it will be singularity number seven.
In the same manner that the invention of the lever and fulcrum improved human lifting ability, artificial
intelligence is at hand to aid and improve the human intellect. Whereas the human must be trained to follow
certain rules in logic and reason (such as always demanding provable premises before bothering with logical
analysis and development), artificial intelligence may be constructed to follow those rules naturally. Machines do
not have cranial limits in size, may be made blindingly fast, have error free large-scale memories, do not suffer
from fatigue and passion and may be permanently attached to a particular function. In the same manner that
elevators no longer need human operators, automobiles, ships and airplanes will soon be intelligent.
Space exploration is much simpler with machine intelligence. Future exploration in deep space will likely be
done by intelligent space machines. And in the far future, entire planets may become intelligent, followed
thereafter by solar systems and galaxies. The universe, in all its vast majesty, is but a senseless juggernaut of
enormous energy and mass but without plan or goal. With the application of intellect, it can, someday, be tamed
and trained into a process with value and purpose. That nebulous and incredible beginning of the universe may
never be solved, but the future can become known and controlled.
Another 'singularity' is also even now in process. The human intellect, itself a singularity, will construct
thinking machines that in many ways will far surpass human capability. Artificial intelligence will be
singularity number eight.
Long before those futuristic ideas come to pass, the uniformity of the thinking machine will be used where
objectivity, fairness and uniformity are most needed, especially in judicial and governing functions.
In summary: there have been six 'singularities' in the process from the beginning of the universe as we know it, to
the present. Two more will transform the human from a creature of a small planet to a creature of the entire
universe. It becomes quite obvious that the human species has great purpose, and each human is quite valuable, if
it contributes. What greater purpose could life have? How could goals be any higher?
TOP
CONCLUSIONS
The universe, an incredible complex of matter, space, time and process, is without value or purpose - it merely is
and does, and no more. Natural processes within the universe developed life. In the beginning life was nothing
more than natural matter that could reproduce. The natural process of evolution then combined with this
reproducing matter to develop many life forms (species of life). Many of these new life forms were no more than
complex arrangements of matter that could survive. Evolution then developed a life form with intellect, an
invention as far reaching as life itself.
The universe is non-thinking. It has no goals or plans. Other than a habitat for life, it has no value. It does,
however, have order (spiced with a bit of chaos) and can therefore be understood. The human is a child of life,
which in turn is a child of the universe. The universe has no voice and therefore cannot speak its behavioral
requirements to the human, but the human has intellect and therefore can learn from (listen to) the universe.
From this search into the universe for the answers to life, the following human philosophy emerges:
1. The magnificent and awe-inspiring universe is real and the human must glory in that reality. The
universe is consistent, reasonable and understandable. It is toward this universe that the human must turn
for all knowledge. All truth is contained therein.
2. There is only one life and all living things share in that life. All other living things are not the brothers
or cousins of the individual human, they are one and the same. A human that does well by all of them, does
well for himself.
3. The human, because of its intellect, is unique and the most wondrous and valuable of the strains of life.
The personal value of each human lies in its degree of dedication to the service of all life.
4. Life began and at first survived only by chance. With evolution, life now blindly seeks survival. With the
human, life will gain intellectual control of evolution and the survival of life will be planned and provided.
Through the human, a part of life, life will gain immortality.
5. The major impediment in the road toward the immortality of life (and thereby the human) and the
intellectualization of the universe, will be the resistance within the human toward intellectual control of its
inherited animal instincts. Each human must strive for intellectual control of its life.
Basis for Morality
A Basis for Morality

From both political (social, cultural) and genetic directions, the human is on a collision course with
extinction. The worldwide cultural issues must be settled before the genetic problems can be properly
approached. The cultural problem may be settled through social integration, in turn allowing a tight
mobilization of the species to solve the genetic issues. Cultural integration requires a consistent,
dependable and provable moral and ethical value system.
A basis for proper (moral, ethical) human behavior must be determined without reference to opinion,
conjecture, spirituality, imagination, philosophy, political ideology or any other form of dogma since these
have no real foundation, are inconsistent, and cannot uniformly satisfy the needs of the human. Real
(factual, scientific) knowledge is consistent and has real basis. If the human is to survive, the real
knowledge uncovered in the sciences must be used as a basis for a uniform human ethical and moral
behavioral system, thereby freeing the human for full attention to species survival.
THE NEED FOR A CONSISTENT MORAL SYSTEM

THE SURVIVAL OF LIFE DEFINES MORALITY
A CULTURE FOR SURVIVAL
A GENETIC CHALLENGE
IN SUMMATION
READERS COMMENTS
THE NEED FOR A CONSISTENT MORAL SYSTEM

Within the human sub-cultures across the earth there is a chaotic mixture of personal behavior systems. All
descended from ancient tribal cultures and are based on opinion, conjecture, spirituality, philosophy,
imagination, political ideology and other forms of dogma. Since the bases of these behavioral systems are
variable, the resulting behaviors are also variable. These differences in behavior can be quite severe. Acceptable
behavior in one sub-culture is often viewed with loathing by another. Individual movement between sub-cultures
can be quite difficult, often requiring several generations to make the transition. If an individual moves into one
sub-culture from another sub-culture and makes no attempt to change his behavior to match the new, he remains
an outcast. Due to variations in language and behavioral systems, worldwide human interaction and
communication suffers, often to the point of warfare. The productivity (intellectual advancement, invention) of
the species is thereby diminished by the amount of intellectual assets lost in dealing with these variations, a loss
that could be eliminated through a uniform ethical and moral behavior system.
file:///C|/onelifebook/ethics/brule.html (1 of 14)1/25/2007 4:51:02 PM
Basis for Morality
Why is a uniform ethical and moral behavior system needed across the species? The answer is two-fold. One lies
in current social problems which are so severe that war and terrorism may well end the species, if large scale
deprivation and massive infectious (social) disease epidemics do not perform that function first. The other lies in
a current but not yet realized genetic problem which is even now closing in on the extinction of the species.
During the two million years of human development as Homo erectus, tribes were small and isolated, and the
entire worldwide population of the species was quite small. Each tribe developed genetic and social differences.
These differences were in both outward appearance and inner neural mechanisms. Each tribe developed unique
behaviors, dress, customs and speech. In some cases the difference was so marked as to become racial rather than
ethnic differences. Each tribe was economically isolated and self-sufficient. Although some trade between tribes
was probable, it was inconsequential to the survival of the tribe. Even then tribal conflict was common and, in
fact, may have been a major factor in the intellectual and social development of the human during that period.
These tribes still exist, though now swollen in population and geographically overlapping. Some geographic
areas contain many tribes within the same boundaries. Geographic isolation, once so necessary for controlling
conflict, has essentially disappeared with huge overlapping populations and modern transportation.
Communication has become even more chaotic with the advent of voice, video and digital communication via
the internet and satellites. Different languages and customs, as well as other tribal behaviors, become quite
troublesome. Cheek to jowl, the human struggles, often violently, to retain its individual tribal identity. As the
population expands, tribal conflict can only become worse.
Another major problem is the lack of human goals. Evolution formed us with no plan in mind. As a product of
evolution, the human also lives without knowing its use or purpose. It would be helpful in developing a uniform
moral and ethical behavioral system based on real knowledge, to first determine, if possible, the proper goals for
the human species. (For human goals see A Philosophy)
What is the end purpose of life? Of the human? Perhaps the answers to these questions will never be known, but,
through a study of life itself, and the development of the human through evolution, a real process may be
established. Like an arrow with a shaft that is 4.5 billion years long, it points in the direction that each species
must inevitably follow, or it, as a species, will perish. In the event that the human should become extinct, all life
will likely eventually perish, for if the development of intellect by life is not sufficient for its survival, then the
extinction of life itself is likely inevitable.
Species other than the human also have their developmental directions. The cheetah and the antelope are good
examples. Each has been getting faster over the past millions of years. If, for any reason, that development
should slow in either species, the result would be disastrous to that species. If the antelope should gain on the
cheetah in its development of speed, the cheetah starves. If the cheetah should gain on the antelope in its
development of speed, the antelope may be over-hunted to extinction. Each must continue developing in its own
direction, or perish. Eventually one will falter and cease to exist.
The race facing the human is far different from that of the cheetah or antelope. The human is faced with a race in
time with the very evolution which developed it. The major essence of the human developmental direction has
been the ever-increasing application of the intellect to human behavior. The intellect has been quite successful in
nullifying environmental effects. That feature has made the human the most successful mobile species on earth.
However, in doing so, it has damaged its own evolutionary controls, resulting in a steady and rapid degradation
of the human intellect. The only way this degradation can be reversed is by human intellectual intervention in
Basis for Morality
and control of its own evolution. This, alone, is a mammoth undertaking for the species.
For the determination of proper human behavior based on real knowledge it is necessary to build a chain of
evidence for use as a basis. This evidence must begin with the first life and extend through the dawn of Homo
sapiens sapiens. It must contain the mechanisms of life and the process by which life evolves into its various
forms. Having established the formation of life and its development process, there are obvious conclusions that
may be drawn concerning proper human behavior. If the conclusions thereby drawn are proper, they carry the
authority of the underlying real knowledge and may be disputed only by denying that real knowledge.
Conclusion 1: In the presence of a known evolutionary direction, even in the absence of known goals, the
desired current behavior for a species may be determined.
TOP
THE SURVIVAL OF LIFE

Life (DNA, the underlying structure of all life) began on earth about 4.5 billion years ago. It has competed with
the environment and survived for that period. Life survives. It survives by competing, in many cases even with
itself. Life can be shown to be universal. There is only one life and all living things share in that life (see
OneLife). Although the organisms (biological mechanisms, species) developed by life in competing are mortal they face natural death - life (DNA) is immortal, since it does not face natural death.
In its survival, life has developed many functional forms (organisms, species). Each of these forms competes to
survive. That competition commonly includes: (1) competition with the external environment, (2) competition
between species and (3) competition between individuals within a species. Evolution is a natural process in life.
All modern species evolved from other prior species. All species either develop into other species or, failing to
survive, become extinct (see Evolution).
Each species is a self-replicating group of organisms. Homo sapiens sapiens (the modern human) is one of these
(see The Evolution of the Human for a chronicle of the evolutionary path from the ancient primate to the modern
human). In its present (natural) form, the evolution process is a senseless one, without planning or goals. The
opportunity for organism change (mutation accidents in the DNA replication process) is largely a matter of
chance. The selection of those changes for permanency in the gene pool is also largely determined by chance,
though tending to favor those changes which enhance survival. Evolution is a reactive system since the evolving
life forms develop to survive in an environment which they do not control.
Within a given species, and other factors being equal, the survival of the species depends on the behavior
(culture) of that species. If it fits the current collective environment and the species does not become extinct, then
the overall behavior of that species is good (normal). In a like sense, the behavior of the species is the summation
of the behaviors of the individuals within that species. Since the culture of a species is the sum of the behaviors
of the individuals within that culture, then the appropriateness of the individual action can be evaluated in terms
Basis for Morality
of the characteristics of the culture.

The process of evolution is senseless and merciless. Among other deficient and undesirable characteristics of
natural evolution, it creates species that are deadly to other species. The resultant competition (often deadly)
between species adds another dimension to the environment which shapes a particular species. Life makes no
distinction. Since it does not reason and has no inherent direction, it merely creates life-forms. It is then the
competition between life-forms and the competition between the life-forms and the physical environment that
determines the set of life-forms which have the best survival. Although not by design, this system insures that all
possible physical life-forms and all possible combinations of life-forms are tested for survivability.
Life, in its myriad creations, has tried a multitude of survival mechanisms. In the case of the human species, the
distinguishing factor is intellect. The question remains unanswered whether this is the ultimate form, the one
which will shape all life-forms for ultimate survivability, thereby achieving immortality for life itself. Until that
question is answered, each species must develop in its assigned notch and seek survivability for itself. If the
human should not be the answer to the survival of life, care must be taken that the failure of the human does not
harm life. In choosing between behavior alternatives, the survival of life is paramount. The survival of the
species is next in importance. The survival of the individual is the least important. Since it can be assumed,
however, under present conditions, that the survival of the human species is the best chance for life itself to
survive, then it is reasonable to assume that the survival of the human species must take precedence in all
decisions. Since the human cannot survive without many other forms of life, those other species necessary for the
human to survive will carry the same priority.
Conclusion 2: Since the product of life is survival, normal (expected, natural) behavior within a
species is that which provides the optimum opportunity for species survival. Individual or
group behavior which supplies less than optimum opportunity for species survival, is perverted
(not normal).
Conclusion 3: In the evolution process, mutations occur to individuals primarily by chance,
without regard to the safety or comfort of the individual. The environment then removes those
mutations which are deleterious to species survival through death and suffering to the
individual. The natural process of life includes both mutations and merciless screening. The end
result is the survival of the species (community) as opposed to the survival of the individual. In
the natural process of life, the behavior and survival of the individual are subservient to the
species welfare.
TOP
A SURVIVAL CULTURE
Basis for Morality
For the first 180,000 years of species existence, the modern human (Homo sapiens sapiens) was a tribal/warrior/
hunter. He still is. The hominid has been a tribal animal for the past four million years, the human (Homo) for the
past two million years. Tribal behavior is instinctive. All social drives (care of children, cooperation,
compassion, tool and weapon invention, territorial defense, language, dress, song, dance, art, competition, etc.)
can be shown to be based on instinct, though the final form and execution is influenced by intellect. All of these
facets of culture are directly related and interdependent and most exist in some form in all of the higher
organisms. All modern cultures are based on these social drives. The details of culture may be quite variable
from group to group, depending on the group viewpoint.
Whereas technology requires factual knowledge, and therefore is uniformly applied from group to group, all
cultural studies are based on dogma of one sort or another. Whereas in technology a truth is a truth, in culture a
truth is a matter of group opinion, and, in fact, is quite variable even within a given group.
Individual social behavior within a particular cultural group becomes a matter of accumulated dogma (opinion,
philosophy, conjecture, hearsay, imagination, etc.), to be applied under a given set of circumstances. It is no
wonder that every possible behavior may be found in one culture or another.
The question is asked: If there are necessary behavioral rules, why can't they be expressed in the same objective
manner as our technology - thereby ending the cultural variability? Such a resulting culture would be knowledge
based instead of dogma based - a uniform intellectual culture instead of many dogma based cultures. It would go
a long way toward developing a benign culture under which all humans could live productively while being free
of the tribal conflicts (war, terrorism, genocide, ethnic and racial bigotry, etc.) now prevalent.
All species have immoral individuals, though the individuals in many species do not have the intellectual
capability of understanding it in order to correct it. All individuals in every species have some immoral behavior.
Evolution is not a planned (engineered) process. It makes no attempt to build the optimum individual.
Conclusion 4: Since with the human there is choice in behavior, its behavior is not classified as
normal or perverted as is with the animals without intellect. The human has the intellectual
ability to understand his instinctive behavioral drives and to modify them to bring his behavior
in line with a consistent moral and ethical cultural system. All of his actions, therefore, may be
classified as moral, immoral, ethical or unethical.
When the human exercises intellectual control over his instincts, and thereby obtains moral
behavior, he is being more 'human' whereas when he succumbs to his instincts and behaves in a
manner which is contrary to intellectual control, he is more 'animal-like'.
It is quite probable that life will never be of consequence in the universe. Chances are it will sputter for a while
then disappear, possibly not even lasting until the demise of earth itself. A glimmer of hope for an effect on the
universe by life exists in the human intellect. The universe has no purpose. It only exists. Intelligent design is a
new concept in the universe. Until it developed in the human there was no intellect to endow the universe with
purpose. To bring about purpose in the universe, it must be modified.
Basis for Morality
Conclusion 5: Modification of natural systems to bring value and purpose is revolutionary in

the universe but native (normal, moral, ethical) in the human.
The human adapts the materials around him to his own needs. Yet the power of his intelligence is still in its
infancy. Perhaps a redesign of the total ecosystem on earth would be a worthwhile task someday. Or consider our
solar system. There is enough useless debris in our solar system to construct a thousand earths in a ring around
the sun - just another real estate project. Then there is the human. Having been created by a process employing
trial and error, one without goal or purpose, the human is beginning to realize that his own design has serious
flaws. The human intellect is also an excellent tool for designing the human. It is very likely that future Homo
species will be designed by man rather than by the idiocy of a merciless and chaotic evolution.
Therein lies the hope in the future of life. As it survived in competition with the environment, it created a species
of life that possesses the creativity of intelligence. That special quality must be protected and nourished. The
survival of the human species becomes paramount. All other forms of life that are compatible with and needed by
the human species fall under the same need for protection.
Conclusion 6: Only the human has the intellectual ability to understand the environment,
including its own instinctive drives, and therefore has an intellectual choice among possible
behaviors. That behavior which can be expected of the human is therefore intellectual, ethical
and moral. If put to the test, therefore, any human behavior may be intellectually analyzed and
if it is an optimum step in the path to human species survival it is ethical and moral, otherwise it
is suspect.
The degree of morality of a human behavior may be determined by judging its efficiency (as
compared with alternate behaviors) in its contribution to the long term welfare and survival of
the human species and in particular the intellectual attributes of that species. Teaching a child
provable fact, as an example, is moral behavior. Teaching a child fantasy, fiction and
ideological dogma is immoral behavior.
The intellectual capability in the human is superimposed over an instinctive behavioral system. The development
of the human over its four million year history produced an intelligent warrior/hunter/explorer. The human
became brave, smart, tenacious and capable of surviving under terrible mental and physical conditions, but had
little time or need for objective intellectual pursuits. The instinctive system is primarily concerned with the
current real environment, both social and physical, and it takes precedence over objective thought, even to the
extent of commandeering the intellect for the furthering of instinctive (subjective) needs. Only when the
instinctive system is at ease can the intellectual system function objectively. Creative thought is simply not
available when the instinctive system is activated by such things as: fear, hunger, dread, greed, lust, outrage, etc.
Conclusion 7: If the human species is to survive it must provide a benign, worldwide, uniform
culture as a working environment. This is essential for a creative species. An intellectual
culture, one based on real knowledge, is required to provide the creative atmosphere so
essential for human invention, and thereby survival.
Basis for Morality
Although the primary loyalty is to the human, any behavior concerning other species which are compatible (we
don't need to protect the HIV virus for example) and which can effect the survivability of the the human (and
man does not live by bread alone) falls within this definition of morality.
TOP
A GENETIC CHALLENGE
The human is a definable biological survival mechanism, one developed to modern form some 200,000 years
ago, in an environment that can also be defined. Its expected individual behavior may be determined from a
study of that dynamic interactive system. A culture (behavioral system) developed from this real knowledge
would be an intellectual culture. All prior dogma must give way in case of conflict.
The distinguishing feature of the survival pattern developed by evolution in the human species is the ability to
modify and control natural (instinctive) behaviors with intellectual considerations. The intellectual component of
human behavior has been very successful in solving human environmental problems. Unfortunately that very
success has distorted the natural evolutionary process resulting in a destructive evolution that will degenerate the
human species into extinction unless order is brought by human intervention. This intervention will require great
invention and dedication. The survival and fulfillment of the human species, therefore, depends on the continued
development and use of the human intellect, which, in turn, may only be achieved through proper human
behavior.
The primary behavioral controls for all mobile species are reactive. Under these controls, current behavior is a
direct result of current environment. These controls are called instincts. Superimposed over these instincts in the
human, and largely in competition with those instincts, are various intellectual controls. These developed as
modifiers to the instinctive controls (see The Human Brain) because they provided more optimum survival
behavior than available with the raw instincts. The human substitutes intellectual control for instinct, when
determining proper action (behavior). That substitution is called 'self-discipline' or 'self-control'.
From the beginning, the human has used its intellect to make its lot easier. Rather than endure the stresses of the
environment, it first invented clothing, shelter, and hunting tools. Later it invented agriculture, manufacturing,
medical care and compassionate cultures. All of these subsidized deleterious mutations that would have
otherwise been culled by the environment.
A new field in human ethics is dawning, one concerning human intervention in the genetic structure of the
human. Surely we need not suffer the thousands upon thousands of genetic defects now resident in our gene pool.
A large portion of those defects are neural and therefore adversely effect the community culture. Conceivably
this intervention could become quite extensive even to the point, in the far future, of the creation of a new human
species to replace our own. Modern sub-cultures (group behavior systems) are based on dogma. Most of these
will strenuously object.
Basis for Morality
Many modern philosophers on the subject predict dire results from tampering with the human DNA
configuration. Most objections are on ethical grounds. Some of these fears are quite valid. Many call for
extremely limited or no intervention. What they all fail to see is that we have no choice. We will either gain
engineering control over our evolution or we will become extinct. That is fact. It is as simple as that. And the
timing is critical. We do not have a lot of time left to bring human evolution under control. Even now the social
structure of the world is degenerating rapidly. If we fail to gain engineering control before the degeneration
collapses our society, the human will become history.
The area of concern in the behavior of the human is the degeneration of the human instinct due to conflict with
the developing human intellect. The following is a quotation from The Degeneration of Man. For more detailed
background on this subject refer to that study.
Evolution degenerates characteristics not screened by the environment. If instincts are controlled
by intellect, they no longer need to breed true, since the intellect will dictate proper behavior. The
originally strong social instincts will, in time, become degenerate and perverted. As these instincts
degenerate, it becomes more and more necessary to enforce community rules for proper behavior.
The evolutionary spiral continues to develop more and more perverted instinctive behaviors as
stronger and stronger offsetting enforcement measures are required to obtain an orderly
community. These stronger behavioral enforcement measures will continue to grow, while the
individuals in the community develop less and less tolerance, until a point is reached when the
individuals in the community rebel. At that point the intellectual restraints are no longer effective,
the now perverted and degenerate social instincts are allowed full sway, and the society teeters on
the brink of collapse. If it should collapse, the human, now with distorted social instincts, would be
unable to survive.
The human species has developed an unusual and deadly evolutionary process. The natural process of evolution,
a process which has produced many wondrous life forms, depends on 2 factors: (1) a defective replication
process which produces offspring with various, almost random, genetic afflictions, most of which are damaging
to the organism, and (2) a demanding and harsh environment which quickly eliminates those changes which are
not beneficial, allowing only the few which are beneficial to survive. This process constantly improves the
survivability of the species at the cost of much suffering and death. Evolution is a merciless, trial and error
process without goals or plans. A species which suffers the pain of a harsh environment will have a high birth
rate, high death rate and short life, but its gene pool will be tightly maintained by evolution. If the environment
becomes, or is changed to be, benign, deleterious mutations which would have been eliminated from the gene
pool will instead be subsidized by the benign environment and allowed to propagate through the species. A
species in fat city is a degenerating species.
Note: Wars, famine, natural disasters, and disease epidemics have little effect on evolution since there is no
selection for individual survivability.
Modern social degeneration is occurring as the result of reverting to damaged instincts. The process that brought
this about is not reversible - we cannot return to the jungle. It is not that the human species is degenerating back
to the base primate configuration, it is degenerating toward an inability to survive. The species must develop out
of this condition through its own intervention in the process of evolution or it will become extinct. If the human
species is to become viable in the long term it must be through use of its intellect.
Basis for Morality
Will the human species be able to advance in its ability to control its own evolution rapidly enough to gain
control before the degenerative nature of a one-sided evolution reduces the species to uniform incompetence,
thereby leading to its extinction? It appears to be a close race.
TOP
IN SUMMATION
The ethics and morality of a given human behavior may be evaluated in terms of the effect of the action with
respect to the survivability of life, the species and the individual, in that order. A given behavior may have an
end value that ranges from quite damaging through a neutral result to one which is invigorating or life enhancing.
In order to apply the general conclusions about morality and ethics to real life decisions, it is necessary to
segment the field of ethics into at least four main groups of ethical consideration:
behavior resulting in effects on the survivability of life,

behavior resulting in effects on the survivability of the species,
behavior resulting in effects on the survivability of the individual, and
ethical considerations concerning human intervention in human DNA.
The ultimate survivability of life is paramount. Any action which damages the general survivability of life is
ethically neutral only if accompanied by associated repair action and the diligent development of ways to
avoid that action completely. Any less coordinated action is unethical and immoral. To be positively
ethical even further steps must be taken. If pollution is generated, for example, there must be efforts to
minimize the amount, to clean up that which is accidental or unavoidable, and to develop processes and
procedures to eventually eliminate the pollution itself.
Once having considered the effects of the behavior on life, the next consideration is to the survival and wellbeing of the human species. Here again the same evaluation procedure applies. There can be no exceptions on the
trade-off between the survival of the human species or subcultures thereof and the overall survivability of life
itself. Life takes precedence. If the human should become extinct (due to its own foolishness) care must be taken
that life survives and in fact is not harmed in its survival.
Once having considered the effects of a given human behavior on life and the species, the next consideration is to
the survival and well-being of the human individual. Here again the same evaluation procedure applies. There
can be no exceptions on the trade-off between the survival of the human and the overall survivability of the
human species and life. Life takes precedence. The human species is next in importance. The individual is least
important. Still, it must be remembered that for life to survive, the human must survive and for the human to
survive the individual must also. With a reasonable and proper culture, one based on real knowledge and
Basis for Morality
designed for the productivity of man, the human should be relatively safe and should enjoy a fulfilling life of
accomplishing more than his share toward the survival of life and the human species. Any other action would be
immoral, unethical and perverted.
The ethics of a particular genetic intervention may also be evaluated using the above steps. The primary
intervention effort should be directed toward improving the species gene pool, with first effort directed toward a
high and consistent species intellect and uniform and correct instincts. All other work is of lesser importance and
is therefore lesser in ethics and morality. The lowest priority, and therefore the most unethical would be
intervention directed toward an individual solely for purposes of vanity, a form of genetic plastic surgery.
The primary worry in a free enterprise world would be the development of genetic intervention methods that
would add value only to a select family tree (those with power or money). Such effort would further widen the
current gap between the have and have-nots. Without question, such work, unless it clearly leads to a future
benefit for the entire species, would be unethical.
A second worry would be in a socialist world, where under government guidance there would be development of
genetic intervention methods that would enhance the power of the state. This would also be entirely unethical.
In the beginning there will be much experimentation primarily aimed at correcting the genetic problems of an
individual. Most of this work will be valuable for where it leads but is of little value for the work it accomplishes
since to be universal it would need to be applied to every human, present and future. Far more ethical to spend
the same time working on a universal correction that can be fed into the gene pool, one which will propagate to
future generations.
TOP
Reader's Comments
READER'S COMMENT:You're missing many aspects of the human condition needed in order to comprehend
morality and the purpose to human life.
AUTHOR'S REPLY:
Those missing aspects are deliberately missing. The human condition, desires, wants, goals, history and needs
are not relevant in the establishment of human morality. In spite of current cultural practice, morality is not a
matter of polls. Man-made morality is an oxymoron. If he makes it up to suit himself then follows it, it is not a
moral action. It is man that needs the rules to follow. The idea that a study of man can provide morality standards
for himself is intellectual incest.
We are creatures of the universe and we must fit within its processes. If human behavior fits these natural
Basis for Morality
processes, the human as a species might survive. If human behavior works contrary to these processes, the
human as a species is certain to become extinct. The interface between the human and the universe, is the same
as all life. It is a process called evolution. We are now operating contrary to that process. If we continue to do so
we will become extinct and the definition of morality becomes moot.
The product of evolution and its process on life is survival. Within that life are specie. Within each species there
are individuals. Within the survival of life there is order. It is the survival of life which is paramount, the survival
of the species which is next in importance (many survive for millions of years) and the individual organism,
although it struggles to survive, it does not. It is my contention that human behavior is based (or could be based)
on intellect, therefore, morality should be based on the behavior he should take and that action is not contingent
on what he wants, what he thinks he needs, how he feels about it, how hard his childhood was, what his skin
color or sexual preference is, etc. The universe was not created for the human to do with as he pleases (although
if the human does as he should it is possible that he may control the universe sometime in the future).
And finally, there is no purpose for the human species at this point in time. Living a fun life is not a purpose.
Doing what comes naturally is not a purpose. The human as the product of a natural process has no more purpose
than the rest of the universe, which is zero. The universe is and does. The human is and does at the present time.
Purpose and value are human concepts and do not apply to natural processes. They may, however, in the case of
the human. The human has intellect and with that intellect he often modifies natural processes to his own use.
When he does so, he modifies nature and thereby gains value and purpose. That action is natural to the human,
but novel in the universe. The human may do the same with himself, and gain intellectual control over the
evolution of his form, intellect and culture . In fact, if he does not, he will become extinct. If he does, then by his
own action he will have created his own value and purpose.
READER'S COMMENT: What I question is calling most people "reaction" machines. It is generally
understood that only psychopaths are true "reaction" machines, and the mental health community is careful to
reserve the psychopath label for adults in this genre, most likely because they recognize that most children start
off with behavior that would be classified as psychopathic in adults. The rationalization is that such children
shouldn't be blamed, because the process is "unthinking". If we continue to have brutal murders by children,
perhaps the psychiatrists will have to re-evaluate their position on this.
AUTHOR'S REPLY: A behavior response to only current sensory conditions is an extremely primitive neural
mechanism response, one found only in the most primitive of mobile organisms. All of the higher animals use
past experience as an important part of their behavior decisions. The behavior of the human, as with many other
species, is in response to current conditions as perceived in the context of past experience. In the case of the
human species, this past experience includes both past training and education as well as past hands-on
experience. That's why proper training and experience is so important for the young. Even in the case of
apparently human instigated behavior, a sudden invention of behavior with no apparent driving force in the
environment, the need for that behavior was the product of past experience and current environment, and it was
expressed in an appropriate environment and time. It was, therefore, reactive.
Modern psychology and psychiatry are still laboring under the illusion that the human uniquely possesses some
form of undefinable 'spiritual' component, one which is modified by environment from person to person to form
the psychopath, the genius or the imbecile. In fact the human is a highly complex biological mechanism, one
Basis for Morality
produced with no planning, engineering or quality control, and is, therefore, widely variable. Though reactive,
the human is highly variable in its reaction (behavior) and produces a wide variability in environmental
assessment and behavioral response.
Children are born, if normal, with the proper thinking and memory apparatus but with clean slate memories zero experience. As they develop (gain experience) and are taught, they gain that other half of the necessary total
environment for proper behavior decisions. Most children know they should not hurt other children by the age of
four or five. If they are strong enough to kill, they are old enough to be punished for doing so.
READER'S COMMENT: Reference your argument about restricting education to the hard sciences. The
weakness in that position is that it ignores the needs of children for aids to growth and maturity. Some of that
process includes something extra beyond the study of facts. Receptors into the brain do include senses such as
ordinary touch. Again, the missing element is interactive feedback.
AUTHOR'S REPLY: A general knowledge of the hard sciences (biology, astronomy, chemistry, physics,
mathematics) is essential for a human to understand its relationship with the universe. These need not be taught
as rote subjects. Each applies to the very basis of human thought. There is a vast difference (or should be)
between teaching these subjects for purposes of orientation and teaching them as a skilled life's work. Even the
hard sciences can be made quite palatable to the younger ones by emphasizing relationships (how they directly
relate to the student) rather than hard facts.
There are many subjects other than the hard sciences that may be taught truthfully, such as law, history,
geography, languages, architecture, economics, commerce, and, of course, all of the trades. Then there are
communications skills, that are a must for in-depth teaching.
The schools are also charged with training the student in proper social behavior. This is a time consuming task
but one infinitely necessary.
It is totally beyond me why there is a widespread belief that truth cannot be taught with the same sensitivity,
empathy, kindness, consideration, etc. as fiction, fantasy, opinion, conjecture and dogma.
READER'S COMMENT: I wish you well in your philosophical endeavor. In the end, I think the social utility of
morality proves its value to human society - but deeper explanations escape me.
AUTHOR'S REPLY: If what I am writing is indeed only another philosophical endeavor, then I have failed.
Although often quite enlightening and inspiring, a philosophy is no more than imagination and conjecture, even
from the most brilliant of philosophers. Even if many philosophers agree on a particular human behavior, there is
no real knowledge expressed. Another group may have the opposite opinion and their opinions are as valid. The
human mind cannot create real knowledge, it can only discover it.
I seek to move behavioral rules to a plane far more factual, one based on known fact, one devoid of opinion, one
that cannot be denied without denying the underlying real knowledge. My approach is to base moral behavior on
Basis for Morality
real and accepted fact. If it is properly done so, my 'philosophy' is no more of a philosophy than an arithmetic
times table.
I do admit it takes 'technical' knowledge to find 'deeper explanations'. One must analyze a mechanism before
prescribing its proper maintenance and care. Such knowledge requires an investment in time and effort. If
modern psychology was a science rather than a philosophy it would be able to answer our questions for us.
Unfortunately, modern psychology is quite archaic, a pseudo-science based on philosophy rather than on science.
It is easy to find polar opposites in opinion among the psychologists. It is impossible to find polar opposites in a
science (one based on fact) such as chemistry or physics.
In the meantime writers on both sides of every social fence can only argue based on opinion. Such writing is the
dogma of our time. We have more than enough dogma already. Yet this discourse is leading our society, a
contradictory discourse based on opinion, imagination and conjecture on both sides. No wonder our world wide
chaotic human culture.
READER'S COMMENT: ......how arrogant!!!!!! To believe that because the human should become extinct, all
life is likely to also become extinct! The human is only one species. If it fails, another will take its place. And
under what kind of convoluted reasoning is it certain that intelligence is the only solution to immortality for life?
AUTHOR'S REPLY: Life is finite. It has finite restrictions in its construction. There are a finite number of
methods (survivable DNA combinations) available for life to survive. Physical characteristics such as: faster,
stronger, more vicious, more offspring, offspring who need no help, offspring that need extensive help, etc. have
all been used. Behavior characteristics such as tree dwelling, burrowing, cannibalism, group coordination,
isolation, etc. have all been used. Construction techniques such as fixed, mobile, external skeletons, internal
skeletons, no skeletons, fur, scales, feathers, hair, etc. have all been used. These have been tried in millions of
combinations over billions of years. Most such combinations (species) have already perished. All were
developed for the very narrow benign conditions here on earth, and are restricted to those conditions. If any life
should prevail that long, when our sun fails and our earth becomes a cinder, it will cease to be.
To survive, life must not only solve its problems here on earth; but life, itself, must be carried to the stars. None
of the above techniques do more than sustain a species for a short time. All of these techniques have one thing in
common, the organism is still at the mercy of the physical environment. Even intellect is not peculiar to the
human species, but it has gained enough strength in the human to modify the environment and the ability to
proceed along that path.
Human intellect not only has the power to modify the environment, it has the power to modify the human itself,
and thereby escape the inevitable extinction that all natural species will endure. Perhaps there is some other
power which evolution has not yet invented, one not yet imagined, one that is superior to intellect. But, intellect
is here now, and it can do the job. If the other one comes along, we will bow out of the way since the survival of
life, not the human, is paramount.
READER'S COMMENT:Darwinian evolution shows that human ethics have evolved during human
Basis for Morality
development and that it continues to evolve to this day. He has shown how behavior has been modified by
evolution over the ages. The very basis of evolution is that something is changing. How can you say that there
are absolute rules?
AUTHOR'S REPLY: I have recently read two texts on 'Darwinian natural right': The Biological Ethics of
Human Nature by Larry Arnhart and Taking Darwin Seriously by Michael Ruse. Both are interesting. The
subject matter is much the same in both. Both authors are excellent in their research and in their presentation. If
you are interested in how cultures evolved from a historical perspective, either text is excellent.
Unfortunately, although Darwin visualized the evolution process, he did not have the knowledge of genetic
structure and function that we have today. He understood how form and function evolved from the standpoint of
the organisms but he was ignorant of the molecular process by which that evolution functioned. He could tell the
story of how it occurred in historical terms, but he had no inkling of the molecular mechanism and its functional
laws. The same applies for his profound ideas on the evolution of culture (where a culture is the collection of
behaviors - the ethics and morality - of a group).
My text is not interested in how culture (behavioral rights and wrongs) developed under the combined physical
and social environment of the human over its development period. Nor is it interested in its future forms if
allowed to evolve naturally from the present condition into the cultural future. It is deeply interested in what the
culture of the human (and therefore its proper individual behavior) should be given the physical reality of its
evolutionary mechanism and its fit in the universe. It projects a cultural eugenics for the intellectual control of
the evolution of culture in the same manner that eugenics projects an intellectual control of the evolution of the
human form. The history of both the form and culture of the human shows a chaotic evolution that was mindless
and without goal or purpose. It provided a cut and try process which thrived on death and misery. Intellectual
control of both gives the human species an evolution that is planned and reasoned, one which provides the
species with goals and fulfillment as opposed to blind survival.
So in this text I have recognized the idiocy of natural evolution in providing the human species with both form
and culture. All of its form and cultural ills are caused by this idiot process. I have recognized that the human is
intellectual and therefore capable of analysis, goal setting, and planning. Bringing the two together so that the
human can work toward optimizing both its form and its culture is now the challenge I offer.
Biologists have learned to move from the organism to the molecular level in their analysis of life forms. The
form of the organism is controlled by the molecules in its DNA. Those who seek wisdom in the behavior of the
human must do the same. Once having ascertained the rules for proper behavior of the human through
determining the basic forces of life on a molecular level, an analysis of the history of culture from that viewpoint
is entirely different. It shows the direction and magnitude of human cultural error that was caused by the natural
(idiot) process of cultural evolution. The two texts cited show an expected direction for human culture, instead
that history should be viewed as a chronicle of cultural error, something to use to learn what not to allow our
culture to experience.
Ethics of Murder.
The Ethics of Cultural Murder

If the human species is to survive it must provide a benign, worldwide, uniform culture as a working
environment. This is essential for a creative species. An intellectual culture, one based on real knowledge,
is required to provide the creative atmosphere so essential for human invention, and thereby survival. The
basis for a benign culture is a deep respect for human life, one which requires a species wide sincere effort
to protect and nurture all human life. Any cultural practice which involves murder (the deliberate and
premeditated killing of a human) diminishes the perceived value of human life and detracts from the
intellectual energy so necessary for species survival.
INTRODUCTION
WAR, TERRORISM and GENOCIDE
CRIMINAL MURDER and CRIMINAL EXECUTION
EUTHANASIA and ASSISTED SUICIDE
ABORTION and INFANTICIDE
READERS COMMENTS
It was learned from A Basis for Morality Conclusion 2 and Conclusion 4 as directed to the human species:
Since the product of life is survival, normal (expected, natural, moral, ethical) behavior within the human
species is that which provides the optimum opportunity for the species survival. Individual or group
behavior which supplies less than optimum opportunity for species survival, is perverted (not natural, not
normal, unethical, immoral).
It was also learned from Conclusion 3 that:
The end result of life is the survival of the species (community) as opposed to the survival of the individual.
In the natural process of life, the behavior and survival of the individual are subservient to the species
welfare.
Considering those two conclusions as provable fact, the following text begins:
Introduction
file:///C|/onelifebook/ethics/kill.html (1 of 11)1/25/2007 4:51:03 PM
Ethics of Murder.
A culture is a set of individual behaviors which apply to a particular group of people. Since the human is neither
instinctively nor intellectually uniform, there will be variances in individual behavior around a central average.
The behavior of an individual is often contrary to that desired by the majority. A true description of a culture
includes all behaviors, even those it tries to curtail. In that case both the undesired behavior and the behavioral
effort to control it are parts of the culture. That individual, however, contributes to the culture, even though his
contribution may be counter to that of the desires of the culture. Both the murderer and the police homicide
department formed to apprehend him are elements of the culture. The culture in the United States is quite broad,
and includes many behaviors which are not optimum for the survival of the species. Murder is one of those
behaviors.
Whether war, terrorism, genocide, criminal murder, criminal execution, euthanasia, assisted suicide, abortion or
infanticide, each creates an anxiety in all individuals. That anxiety is subtracted from each individual's objective
thinking and productive ability. Each of these practices contributes to a cheapening in the value of the human
individual. Each is a base practice which detracts from the intellectual culture. These practices do not fit well in a
benign intellectual cultural environment. Each involves brutality to the victim and by the killer. The loss of the
individual, though tragic, is a small part of the damage. The effects and social acceptance of such practices
brutalize all human society. While the need in an intellectual culture is for respect for all human life, murder
practices cause contempt for the value of human life. Some of these practices are not avoidable at the present
time. All must be minimized and eventually eliminated.
The most deep-seated of all instincts in all mobile organisms is the will to survive. Threats to survival are acted
upon with the highest priority. Since the human is intellectual, most behavioral decisions are based heavily on
memory (experience, training, education). Any ongoing threat to survival is thereby prominent and enters into
every decision process. Living under any threat against survival develops deep-seated anxieties, taking time
away from creative pursuits for danger appraisal and precautions . An intellectual culture, an absolute necessity
for human survival, loses efficiency when a portion of its productivity is siphoned off by unease and fear. It is
absolutely essential that human culture be one of dependable safety and confidence. A deep and universal respect
for human life is essential in such a culture.
Although many predators kill outside their own species, it is usually for food. When not for food, it is, in most
cases, to eliminate competition for food. There are very few that will kill within the species. In most cases of
strife within a species it is only the male that is involved and the intent is to drive away, to protect a territory for
food or sex, but not to kill. In several species, death may result from the strife but it is not the intent of the strife.
Premeditation in killing (deliberate murder) within a species is extremely rare other than in the human species,
where it is quite common by both sexes. It is in fact a part of modern human culture and is expressed in several
ways.
The human, due to its application of intellect to the solution of environmental problems (medicine, copious food,
shelter, clothing, compassionate cultures, etc.), is in a state of evolutionary degeneration. Through the
inventiveness of the human, the gene pool cleansing effect of the natural environment has been largely
suspended. Deleterious mutations are predominant and are subsidized, thereby accumulating in the gene pool.
The evolutionary direction of the human is degeneration, not diversity. This human degeneration effects both
physical and intellectual mechanisms. This process must be recognized and steps taken to offset it. In the long
run the complete redesign of the human, with the possibility of eliminating sexual reproduction, may be
necessary in order to stabilize the human gene pool and provide an optimum social environment that will
capitalize on the human intellectual abilities.
Ethics of Murder.
TOP
War, Terrorism and Genocide

War is premeditated mass murder planned and executed by cultural groups. A civil war is caused by a cultural
split within a large cultural group, a split perceived by each side to be so basic that only violent domination of the
other side can satisfy it. Terrorism is small scale war usually employed by small cultural groups who are, or
believe they are, threatened by a larger cultural group. Genocide is a one sided war where the strongest cultural
group seeks not only to violently dominate the weaker, but to murder its population as well. Each type of war has
its own cultural rules and is conducted on the basis of one culture against another.
War is caused by cultural differences. Multiculturalism emphasizes cultural differences. Multiculturalism leads
inevitably to war. Human instincts demand it.
From the time of Homo habilis to less than 10,000 years ago, a period of more than two million years, the human
was a hunter/gatherer living in small tribes. There was fierce competition between tribes for the best hunting
grounds. The strongest, best organized, most cunning and most vicious gained the best grounds and tended to
survive better. If tribes became too successful, their population increased. Hunter/gatherer tribes do not function
well when the tribe is too large. Transit time from camps to hunting grounds became too long. Game began to be
scarce. At such times the tribe needed to split and a large portion became homeless, wandering away to search
for another valley. Such splits often brought civil war within the tribe as capital goods were divided between
those who stayed and those who were evicted. These new nomadic tribes searched for new ground. Often the
new ground they found was already taken. This led to tribal (cultural) war.
Early in the history of the human, ethnic and racial differences signaled danger. A new group coming over the
hill to make their home in your valley might have different colored skins, or speak a different language, or dress
differently. These were signals of trouble ahead. With two million years of history, and starting long before the
big brain developed, racial and ethnic bigotry is normal (instinctive) in the human.
Tribalism to the point of war is normal (instinctive) in the human. Genocide, the driving off or killing off of a
particular racial or ethnic group is normal (instinctive) in the human. Terrorist acts started millions of years ago
when tribes raided each other's camps or the lone hunter in the forest was ambushed. Terrorist acts, too, are
normal (instinctive) in the human.
War, terrorism and genocide are normal (instinctive) in the human and will remain so until the human redesigns
the human. The only methods available in the meanwhile to curtail these instincts are training (behavior by
enforced edict) and education (behavior chosen by the individual in response to learning truth and fact). As with
any other social (instinctive) drive, training is by far the most successful method for obtaining consistent and
uniform control of social behavior.
Ethics of Murder.
Seriousness
Although the human species has a huge population that is widespread into every nook and cranny on earth, it is
still quite vulnerable to annihilation due to internal conflict within the species. Nuclear and biological warfare
would not only endanger the human species but it would also place all life in jeopardy.
War, the preparation for war, and the preparation for defense in case of war, are extremely expensive in terms of
human assets. In addition to the individual hardships, the population becomes brutalized.
Avoidance
Tribal disputes over foraging territories are as old as man. Tribalism is a basic instinct in the human species, one
that was developed over a period of 4 million years or longer. A different language, appearance, apparel,
behavior, etc. is instinctively a danger sign, with instant distrust and apprehension. Since the behavior is
instinctive it may not be educated. Intellectual control over the instinct (training) is required instead. The species
must establish strong rules concerning hostilities and strictly enforce them.
Minimizing
Politicians are not reasonable people. By nature they are aggressive and arrogant power seekers. The larger and
more complex the governing sectors, the more opportunity for warfare. The size and scope of the overall
governing groups must be actively monitored, always with an eye to minimizing both, by keeping their scope as
narrow as possible and their size as small as possible.
Ethnic differences become tools to inflame the public and obtain their cooperation. As long as the human species
allows multiple cultures, wars are inevitable. In the final analysis, every conflict is fought over cultural
differences. Integration of the species into one culture would be a giant step toward ending wars.
TOP
Criminal Murder and Criminal Execution

Criminal murder is rare in comparison with other cultural murder practices, but the drive-by-shooting,
unmarried love nest murder, and drug dispute murder are all parts of American culture.
Murder by criminal execution is much rarer than criminal murder. Even when sentenced, the length of
the seemingly endless appeals allows must convicted murderers to die natural deaths.
Ethics of Murder.
The propensity for murder in the individual is not uniform in the human species. Genetic divergence in the
characteristics of the instinct profile in the human is a result of the evolutionary relationship between instinct and
intellect (see The Degeneration of the Human). Cultural environment also plays a strong part. The attitude of the
individual human toward murder, and thereby the likelihood of a favorable disposition toward murder, becomes
the summation of the two effects. As a result, murder may be committed by individuals from any walk of life but
is more apt to happen by individuals from poor cultural environments. When poor genetics and poor environment
occur simultaneously in an individual, the result is often explosive. The murder spree is becoming more and
more common, especially among the very young.
Seriousness
Criminal murder is not as common as death from many diseases, but its effect on the minds of the population is
much more severe. It is also the subject of publicity which intensifies the effect.
Criminal execution is not significant in numbers, nor is it seriously followed even in the cultures that allow it.
The effect is multiplied by the publicity surrounding any execution.
Minimizing
There is evidence that murder in the media (television, fiction, music, news) breeds murder. Every effort should
be extended to curtail murder sensationalism in all of these avenues. The public deserves the news, but no more.
Since the propensity for murder is a variable instinctive factor in the human mind, it will remain a severe
problem until DNA engineering removes it. In the meantime, strict enforcement of law, quick apprehension and
trial, and severe sentencing are the only tools available for minimizing criminal murder.
Criminal execution should be conducted quietly and humanely in the manner of euthanasia in Holland, perhaps
as a gradual administration of morphine ending in an overdose. The death should be reported as simple fact
without embellishment.
The publicity and sensationalism surrounding both murder and execution blows both problems out of proportion.
All publicity surrounding both should be severely curtailed. They should be reported as cultural statistics, even
perhaps summarized briefly once, and no more.
TOP
Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

Euthanasia is the premeditated murder of another human being by a doctor. The murder is at the discretion of the
doctor. The theory behind euthanasia appears to be sound and reasonable. If a patient is unquestionably doomed,
Ethics of Murder.
and is either comatose with no hope of recovery or cursed with uncontrollable pain, a quick and painless death is
merciful. Unfortunately, it is also desirable from an economic point of view, and the doctor may have an entirely
different opinion of acceptable life from that of the patient. Objective decisions tend to be much colder than
subjective ones. Another factor entering into a decision on euthanasia is the age of the patient. The older the
patient, the more apt he/she is to be 'mercifully' relieved of his burdens. A final factor is the attitude of the family
of the patient. There are family situations where euthanasia may result from family pressure on the doctor,
especially if at the borderline of decision on merit, and the patient has a liquid estate.
Assisted suicide is the premeditated murder of another human being by a doctor at the request of the victim. If
the physical condition of the patient meets the requirements for euthanasia and in addition the patient wishes his/
her life terminated, assisted suicide at first glance appears to be merciful. Since the desire to die by the patient is
entirely subjective, however, the need to die is often clouded in uncertainty. There have been cases in Holland,
where assisted suicide is legal, when the patient on admission expressed the desire to die but recanted later under
successful pain therapy, only to be mercifully 'aided' by the doctor soon thereafter.
In practice, the distinction between euthanasia and assisted suicide becomes quite blurred. Depression is common
in the terminally ill. By not treating the depression, and heeding the suicidal desires of the patient, assisted
suicide becomes quite close to euthanasia, especially if the physical condition does not warrant patient
termination.
Seriousness
Neither practice is widely accepted in the world today but it is suspected that both practices are widespread,
being performed quietly and on a case by case basis. Without enforced guidelines, abuse is quite likely.
Patients become frightened at the thought of being admitted into a hospital that has the authority to terminate
their lives. In Holland, where both euthanasia and assisted suicide are legal, some patients would rather suffer at
home than take the chance, especially the older ones. Even though guidelines are strict, euthanasia/assisted
suicide quickly becomes the way to empty needed hospital beds and to terminate mounting medical costs. It is
unfortunate that a person in need of medical help must also carry the burden of worry about a possible deadly
turn of that medical help.
Due to economic forces, the costs of medical care under a socialized medical system will climb without limit
(see Socialism and Medicine. Socialized medicine brings pressure to institute life termination policies, even
covert ones if necessary.
Alternatives
The hospice programs are a humane solution. Under such programs, the patient is made as comfortable as
possible, both physically and mentally, using any available medical means, but death is not deliberately hastened
by either action or inaction. High cost life support systems are not generally made available and diagnostic
support is terminated. This compromise is economical, merciful and provides security for the patient. It, in effect,
gives the patient control over his own demise.
Ethics of Murder.
TOP
Abortion and Infanticide

The life in the human is composed of two strands of DNA in each and every cell within the body. Unless and
until a cell contains two strands of DNA, it is not human. Neither the sperm nor the egg contains 2 strands. They
are alive but they are not human. The egg contains one strand of DNA together with a set of biochemicals which
cause it to be an embryonic cell, one which will produce a human being when coupled with a male human sperm
cell. The instant that the embryonic cell contains two strands of DNA, it is human. This occurs when the sperm
couples with the egg, thereby providing the egg with the other life which is needed to develop the human. Since
it is human at that point it deserves the protection and nurture of any human.
It is shear nonsense that the fetus is not human. There is nothing magical that happens to the fetus at birth or at
any time preceding birth which converts the fetus from biochemical garbage that may be discarded to a human
that deserves protection and nurture. It becomes a human the instant that it becomes a fetus. Any act to the
contrary is criminal.
Whether the child is in the womb or the arms of the mother, the relationship is the same. The mother
nourishes, protects, and cares for a human infant, one which is helpless and totally dependent on the
whims of the mother. Abortion and infanticide are synonyms, acts of murder separated only by cultural
practice.
Abortion is the premeditated murder of a human being where the parent desires the murder and a medical doctor,
usually, acts as executioner. Even more perverted, the victim is the young child being murdered by its own
mother.
When performed for medical reasons that involve the physical safety and physical health of the mother or the
avoidance of a child so subnormal as to be a burden on the mother and society - where the net result of the
abortion is clearly a benefit to society - abortions are moral.
In all other cases, especially when performed merely for the convenience of the mother, it is not only immoral
and unethical, it is criminal, whether or not the laws of a land call it so. More than a million abortions for
convenience are performed in America each year. Most women who have abortions are so slovenly in their
sexual matters that many require multiple abortions during their child bearing years. Many deliberately carry an
unwanted pregnancy until the fifth month before an abortion, using the doomed fetus as a birth control device
allowing sexual abandon.
Indiscriminate abortion fosters a social view of expendable human life. Any society which fosters the view that
one life may be terminated by another purely for convenience will not be able to focus on the long term survival
of any life, much less the human species.
Abortion is not the only instrument of child murder used by the human mother. Of all of the mammals, only the
Ethics of Murder.
human female will deliberately kill her own young. About 250 American mothers are convicted each year for
killing their own children after they were born. Far more are not apprehended. It is also suspected that a large
percentage of early crib deaths are actually homicides. In fact it appears that some mothers serially murder their
own children (see Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). Even when the mother is caught and convicted, society
partially subsidizes infanticide by considering it a crime of about the same severity as battery or burglary. The
average sentence is about 2 years.
Child abuse by battery, starvation and cruelty is common in America. It is usually the mother that is at fault.
Often she stands idly by, in such cases, and allows others to batter her children. Many other human mothers
batter their newborn indirectly by drug consumption during pregnancy. Many such children never become
normal adults due to such damage.
The cause of this condition is simple. It springs from the evolutionary process by which the modern human was
formed. Simply stated:
Evolution diminishes characteristics not needed. (See Evolution)

Mother love is an instinct far more ancient than the intellect.
As the intellect formed in the human, it also verified and insisted on the practice of mother love as a social
necessity.
Mutations over time to the mother love instinct degraded that instinct but the intellect, heeding social
pressures, overruled such degraded instinct allowing such mutations to remain in the gene pool only
because they no longer mattered. In time these mutations became common and widespread. Behavior was
still moral and proper, but in many cases existed only as the result of the will power of the individual to be
moral.
A new social order formed which postulated that the instincts should be followed rather than the intellect.
It was no longer what one should do, but what one wished to do. Those with damaged 'mother love'
instincts were now free to exercise their perversions.
The abortion social perversion has become so widespread that society now accepts the right of the woman
to murder her unborn child with social approval and metes only small censure for infanticide.
Although this degradation of the mother love instinct in the human female is the result of a natural process, the
behavior it espouses is socially unacceptable.
Seriousness
More than a million convenience abortions occur each year. A war or genocide in which that many humans were
murdered would be intolerable. Such mass brutality brutalizes the sensibilities of all humans.
Avoidance
There is no excuse for a convenience abortion. There are adequate tools available to avoid the frivolous
pregnancy. Birth control devices and medicines abound. There is also will power and self control. There is also
crisis avoidance through intellectual planning. And, finally, there is personal acceptance of responsibility for
one's actions. Conception, pregnancy, birth, and responsible child care are matters of deep reverence and
appreciation of human life. Any frivolous activity adversely effecting such matters is immoral since it effects the
Ethics of Murder.
quality of life of the next generation.

If there was ever an area in human behavior that needs the heavy application of intellect to a runaway, archaic
and degraded instinct, it is in the intellectual control of individual sexual activity. Sex is serious cultural business.
Sexual influence is deeply involved in every cultural activity. It was originally designed by evolution to be a
means of procreation and a stabilizing influence on the mother-father relationship for the required long-term
rearing of children. It was never meant to be a frivolous recreation. It is highly destructive if used in that manner.
Minimizing
If convenience abortions must be allowed then the mother who demands one should be sterilized as a part of the
process. A woman with homicidal tendencies toward her own children has such damaged mother instincts, she
will never be a good mother for any child. In an already overpopulated world, this screening of future mothers
will partially offset the evolutionary problem causing the degeneration of the 'mother instinct'. In a sense, such
practice replaces the normal evolutionary gene pool cleansing function in a much more humane way.
Increasing social censure of all mother murder, to the point of active and severe criminal prosecution, will be
increasingly necessary to offset the growth in this despicable social practice, even though it is a result of the
natural process of evolution. Damaged social (instinctive) drives abound in the human DNA. The 'mother love'
instinct damage is only one.
TOP
READERS COMMENTS
READER'S COMMENT: How can you say that abortions are immoral when our laws specifically state they
are not?
AUTHOR'S REPLY: A law establishes whether a given behavior is criminal. In most cases those behaviors
which are criminal are also unethical and immoral. The set of behaviors which are criminal are contained within
the set of behaviors which are unethical and immoral. Even if it should be desirable to do so, it would be next to
impossible to legislate morality. Certainly it is immoral and unethical to disobey laws, but laws do not cover all
conditions of morality. In this particular case, the law is wrong, since it specifically allows murder.
READER'S COMMENT: A woman has the right to control her own body. What she does with her own body is
her own business. The fetus is a growth in her body and until it is borne it is no more than a tumor. At the most it
concerns only the woman and her physician.
Ethics of Murder.
AUTHOR'S REPLY: It can be proven that the fetus is the body of a separate human being and is not a part of
the body of the woman. If unmarked and unspecified tissue samples from the fetus and the mother were
submitted to a laboratory for tests of the nuclear DNA, the DNA report would be returned that the tissue samples
came from two separate human beings who were closely related. This is incontrovertible proof that the fetus is
human and a separate human from the mother. Any human being deserves the protection of law.
If the woman has a tumor in her body and wishes it removed, it can also be proven that the tumor is a part of her
body, and therefore within both her legal and moral control. If unmarked and unspecified tissue samples of the
tumor and the mother were submitted to a laboratory for tests of the nuclear DNA, the DNA report would be
returned that the samples came from the same human being.
It was recently announced that if a woman who is infected with HIV should become pregnant, she could bear a
child which was free of the virus by following certain medical procedures. It is obvious that during the pregnancy
the fetus is not infected, or it could not be born free of the virus. Before, after and during pregnancy, all parts of
the mother's body are infected. During and after pregnancy, the child's body is not. Tissue and blood samples
from any location in the mother's body, except the fetus, would show this infection. During that same period of
time, if tissue samples were taken from any location in the fetus, they would show a negative HIV infection
status.
The obvious conclusion is that although the fetus is in the woman's body, it is a separate living being. As shown
above, tests of DNA from fetal tissue would show that this separate living being is a human.
READER'S COMMENT: We have a severe world-wide over-population problem. Two things would happen if
we abolished abortion: (1) the population would expand at more than a million more people each year, and (2)
unwanted children are a burden on everyone and are more likely than wanted children to become criminal or
wards of the state.
AUTHOR'S REPLY: I agree that we must control the birth rate and hold the population to a viable number
which is in balance with the ecosystem and one that maximizes the comfort of the human. Abortion is a brutal
birth control method. There are many other tools that may be used for that purpose that are not brutal in
themselves and as brutalizing to the society as a whole.
Recently an 18 year old man was convicted of the rape and murder of a young child. He was given a life sentence
without parole. The current life expectancy of 74 translates into 58 years of free board, room, and medical care
while in a high cost guarded facility, all at the expense of the community - yet we freely terminate human life by
the millions, simply because they might be in the way.
We have a contradictory cultural behavior toward our own genetic welfare. We abort more than a million
innocent human lives each year, most of whom would have become productive citizens in our society, while
maintaining expensive prisons for people that we have judged not to be innocent and who have little probability
of ever being anything other than a burden on society. From a genetic standpoint, for every untried human we
abort we should also execute a criminal (with no more fanfare than the abortion). This would help our population
problem, improve societal economics and quickly diminish the amount of crime.
Ethics of Murder.
Human Sex
Sex
All human behavioral drives are instinctive. Individual human behavior is in response to these basic
instincts as modified by the human intellect. The intellectual (moral, ethical) human controls its behavior
by augmenting those social drives which correspond with its culture and diminishing those drives which
are contrary. The drive for sex is one of the strongest of the human instincts, often over-riding even the
instinct for survival.
Sexual reproduction is an ancient evolutionary tool. Its significance in the development of the human,
genetically and socially, is profound. It is hard to find a cultural rule which does not refer in some way to
sex. Contrary to modern (PC) ideology, the unit of human culture is not the individual. It is, instead, the
male-female bonded pair and their off-spring. This has been true at least 4 million years, since the first
hominid ventured onto the plains.
Is sex being properly (intellectually, morally, ethically) applied in modern human culture? And what
about the future? Are there fundamental social and genetic changes that need to be made? These
questions are discussed from an ethical and moral viewpoint, where the survival of the species is the
paramount consideration.
SUMMARY
REPRODUCTION BEFORE SEX
EARLY SEXUAL REPRODUCTION
MALE-FEMALE SEXUAL REPRODUCTION
MODERN HUMAN SEXUAL PRACTICE
SEX IN THE FUTURE
COMMENTS FROM READERS
normal, not expected, unethical, immoral).
file:///C|/onelifebook/ethics/sex.html (1 of 14)1/25/2007 4:51:05 PM
Human Sex
welfare.
SUMMARY
The drive for sex is one of the most ancient of instincts, dating back at least 680 million years. Most modern
mobile life-forms are driven by this same instinct. It is also one of the strongest of all instincts in all of the lifeforms that contain it, at times even surpassing in strength the drive for survival. All life-forms which are sexual
have strong sexual behavior patterns. In all of the mobile organisms, the human being the exception, sexual
behavior is controlled by instincts tailored to the particular organism and are compatible with the overall
behavior of the organism. Both the sexual drive and the sexual behavior controls are instinctive in all of these
animals.
The human developed from an ancient primate about four million years ago. That primate was well developed
even at that time. Its sexual drive and behavior controlling instincts were strong and uniform. The other modern
primates all have these characteristics, with sexual behavior systems which fit them and their life style. Only the
human developed a different behavior system, one which included intellectual control over the instincts.
As the hominid developed to become the modern human, it developed intellect in parallel with other physical and
neural differences. The advantages were huge. Blind reaction to an environmental condition was replaced with
decisions based on experience and planning. Along with this development, and as a result of it, human behavior
became more and more intellectual and complex.
The drive for sex in the human is vastly different from that of other sexual organisms. The ancient sexual drive
and sexual controls do not fit modern culture. Only through the application of the intellect, utilizing experience,
education and training, as a control over the raw instincts, may proper cultural behavior be obtained.
The human sex drive is without conscience. It does not care about long range effects. It seeks only immediate
gratification. If conscience exists, it exists in the intellect of the human. To be human is to allow the intellect to
select the time, place, partner and procedure. To be promiscuous is to be sub-human.
TOP
REPRODUCTION BEFORE SEX

Human Sex
Reproduction in kind is the basic difference between the inanimate and the living. Life (DNA) reproduces by
division. The very first reproduction occurred when life itself was born. The ability to reproduce was the
characteristic which defined this new biological compound as being alive. For a description of this reproductive
process see OneLife. When life started it was completely dependent on its environment for its necessities. The
biological chemicals needed for its reproduction were required to be in the soup in which it lived and propagated.
As the original life (DNA) reproduced, occasional mutations occurred in its reproduction. Most of these
reproductive accidents were deadly and the strains following became extinct. Occasionally a superior
competitive form appeared and quickly crowded out the others. For a description of the evolutionary process see
Evolution.
Through this evolution process, life (DNA) began to develop into methods of coping with its environment by
defining protective organisms in which it could better survive. Even after life (DNA) began to specify living
organisms in which to live, those organisms also reproduced by division for about 3 billion years. Many modern
forms still do. In these cells, first the DNA reproduces, then the cells divide into two, each taking one of the two
DNA sets. Other than in the case of the rare occurrence of a mutation, reproduction by division produces clones.
When life and its living organisms reproduce through division by replication, the reproductive process is very
stable. The accuracy of DNA replication when only by division is quite remarkable. The replication is so
accurate that few mutations occur. Since the rate of evolutionary development depends on the rate of mutation,
the process of evolution is quite slow when the reproductive method by the organism is division.
When the human applies engineering to the human DNA, and that process is starting, it will seek a perfected
DNA, one without known genetic defects, then it will design a replication system with a much smaller mutation
rate. Very likely some form of cloning will be involved since the direct replication by the DNA through division
is exceedingly stable (extremely low in mutations).
TOP
EARLY SEXUAL REPRODUCTION

Early cells obtained their energy from sunlight through photosynthesis. As mutations occurred, untold thousands
of species formed. Then a mutation caused the formation of a cell which could also gain energy by absorbing
another cell. With dual sources of energy, this new strain survived well. From this line, evolution produced many
new thousands of species.
When these cells absorbed other cells, they inherited the DNA also. In most cases this new DNA was also
digested, but until they were digested they functioned as before in the new body. If the cell should divide while
the foreign DNA was enclosed and functioning, it also would divide. In time a strain developed which required
two sets of DNA to properly function. From these came a new strain which required the transfer of DNA from
another cell for proper cell division and thereby reproduction. These hermaphrodites, same sex partners each
Human Sex
capable of both impregnating and child bearing, provided sexual reproduction.

Evolution is an extremely cruel process. The process of evolution provides a more survivable organism within
the current environment by providing near random mutation changes to the organism then sorting out the
undesirables through death and suffering. Most mutations are immediately fatal. Many more prove to be fatal
later in life. Some become fatal to the following strain some generations later, after much suffering from the
affliction by the intermediate generations. Since the survivable mutations are only a small portion of the total,
and reproduction by division is highly accurate, developmental progress is slow. If the number of mutations
should increase, however, the strain may develop rapidly, even though the death rate increases in proportion.
Sexual reproduction is a far more complex process than division (cloning). As a result of this complexity, more
things can go wrong in the reproduction. These errors are then sorted by the environment. The result of sexual
reproduction is a high death rate but a rapid development of the species.
Another advantage emerged from sexual reproduction as living organisms became more complex. The sexual
reproduction mixed the genes from two separate strains allowing the testing of various combinations of
characteristics of both strains. This process also resulted in both good and bad mixes. The bad ones suffered and
died and the good ones were propagated to future generations. As a result of this process, the progress in the
development of a species is much more rapid but the hardship on the individuals within the species is much more
severe since there are far more with deficiencies which are required to suffer and die.
Species which reproduced by sexual combination quickly became dominant.
About 680 million years ago, as a result of the evolution process, complex colonies of cells began to show
unique survival qualities in certain environmental niches. As long as these cooperatives were loosely joined, each
individual cell could continue to reproduce through division, but when these began to form cooperatives which
required multiple cell functions derived from the cells, other means of reproduction were required. Many forms
of reproduction evolved. The production and ejection of spores or seeds which had the ability to develop to
maturity was one of the solutions. Many thousands of variations of this theme still exist to this day. Budding into
separate organisms was another successful scheme with many variations. Sexual reproduction became the rule
with few exceptions.
Under the original sexual reproduction, both parties were hermaphrodites. It was a successful scheme, with
modern day examples such as the flat worms shown courting in the picture below:
Human Sex
From a short announcement in Scientific American of a prior article by Michiels and Newman in Nature.
Shown are two flat worms Pseudocecos Bifurcus, each about 4 cm. long, that live on the ocean floor near
Queensland, Australia. Each trying to impregnate the other while avoiding being impregnated by the
other, they will spar in a mating dance called penis fencing. Each such duel lasts from 20 minutes to over
an hour. Since the function of each is the same, their physical and social characteristics are also the
same, and their DNA almost identical.
Sexual reproduction between two different organisms (male, female) having a common reproduction path but
possessing differing DNA configurations, and differing role behaviors, is relatively new, probably dating from
less than 400 million years ago.
All of the methods of procreation, whether by division, hermaphrodite mating or male and female mating, are
present in various modern life forms. Since all have survived, then one is as good as another for species survival,
although behavior systems must fit the procreation method. The division method, however, develops an
organism very slowly and is confined to the less complex organisms.
TOP
MALE-FEMALE SEXUAL REPRODUCTION

One would think that sexual reproduction by hermaphrodites would have a decided advantage since both parties
may bear young and twice as many offspring should provide a better chance for species survival. In the case of
the human, however, the accent is on fewer offspring with better training and care. Too many children results in
less care and training with a consequent higher rate of child mortality. Some other species opted for the opposite
case: less training and care for the young ones but enough of them to make up for the losses thereby generated.
Once sexual reproduction was established, mutations then provided a strain of organisms in which sexual
reproduction was specialized. One, the male, supplied only the second DNA string, while the other, the female,
provided the other string and the initial embryonic cell, and actually bore the young. This new strain, one of the
descendents is the human, offered advantages in some cases. The real advantages came about in social structure.
Male female reproduction not only provided specialization in sexual reproduction, it also required specialization
in survival tasks. This specialization in turn required cooperation between the male and female for species
survival. The concept of culture was thereby invented.
Cultural variations among biological organisms exploded. Many very different ones were quite successful and
still exist to this day. The basic requirement is that one female and one male cooperate in the sexual union which
produces the offspring. Many organisms developed nothing more. In the more bizarre adaptations a female spider
eats the male immediately after copulation for the extra energy she requires for the bearing of her young. In
another case, also a spider, the male is paralyzed by an injection from the female and his body supplies the food
Human Sex
for the young when they are first born. Other organism cultures provide seasonal groups of males and females in
a sexual orgy. In still others the males provide food and protection for the females. In the early hominid it was
necessary to form cooperative groups (herds, tribes) wherein the roles of the males and females were quite
different. As the human developed, so did these cooperative cultures.
When roles are different between two organisms such as the male and female of a species, even though they may
share the same reproductive process, evolution develops form in each to fit those cultural differences.
Dimorphism (male larger than the female in the human) was one of the results. Physical differences in form and
shape between the sexes was not the only differences. Neural differences were also developed. As a result of the
male having a different role from that of the female, there were both physical and mental differences between the
two. Although both experience the same environment, and they share large overlapping regions of agreement,
they think differently about it and provide different solutions to the same problems. The cooperative combination
of the two then provides optimum species survival. Unfortunately, natural evolution is an idiot engineer that does
not foresee what is best for the species. As it develops a species to fit a given environment, it approaches but
never reaches the ideal organism, one which has the maximum opportunity for species survival. As a result there
is wide variation in both the agreement between the human sexes on survival (social) matters and their
differences. See The Evolution of Man for a chronicle of the development of the human.
The cell of a complex organism, such as the human, contains two kinds of DNA. The nuclear DNA specifies the
organism shape and function, whereas the mitochondrial DNA provides the functioning of the cell itself. In the
case of a cell which produces hair, for example, the nuclear DNA supplies the instructions for making the hair,
the mitochondrial DNA actually provides the manufacturing function. Nuclear DNA is supplied by both parents.
Only the mother supplies the mitochondrial DNA. The nuclear DNA, once the organism is mature, rarely
replicates. Mitochondrial DNA constantly replicates during the life cycle. The replication stability of the
mitochondrial DNA is therefore quite important in the well-being of the organism. In the female the two strands
of nuclear DNA are the same, in the same manner as in the hermaphrodite ancestor. In the male, the two strands
differ. Where the female human has two X chromosomes, one of which came from the father and the other the
mother, the male has an X chromosome which came from the mother and a Y chromosome which came from the
father. The Y chromosome, therefore, is the development from the hermaphrodite ancestor which brought about
the specialization in the male/female reproduction process. The dominant sex in the reproductive chain,
therefore, is the female, the male DNA change being an evolutionary afterthought.
The human baby is quite large in comparison with the size of the human mother. Its head is proportionately
larger than other mammals. The gestation period is also quite long. These are the main causes for the physical
and social (instinctive) differences between the human male and female. The modern human (Homo sapiens
sapiens) female can bear about one child per year from the age of about 14 to about 45. During the first 180
thousand years or so of the species, the average age at death of both male and female has been estimated to be
about 35. Family sizes of 1 to 2 dozen were common. The older children helped the mother with the younger
until they themselves started their own family. If the mother died, the older children took over the care of the
younger ones. The death rate was high for all ages but especially high for infants. As cultures progressed, the
infant and child mortality rate went down, eventually causing the human population explosion.
During child bearing age, the female is clumsy and physically vulnerable. In those early days, she was either
carrying a late term pregnancy or a young baby all of the time. Children are quite vulnerable until their early
teens. Below that age they must have attention and care. From a construction viewpoint, the human female
requires a large pelvic for giving birth to large babies and especially the large human head. This feature severely
Human Sex
limits strength and agility. In severe environments she must be small to conserve food. When encumbered with
small children or pregnancy, both she and her children were extremely limited in mobility, unable to run, carry
large loads, or fight off predators. The human male evolved in parallel to perform those functions. He was
constructed physically larger and stronger, with a quite different mental outlook, to carry heavy loads, kill the
large game, and to protect the female and children, to the death if necessary.
The intellectual additions to the instincts of our species are the result of evolution. The development of these
intellectual additions provides a more optimum behavior through intellectual control of the instincts. This
combination of intellect and instinct enhances survival. A major part of this new intellect was a greatly expanded
memory. Since this new memory is capable of not only storing past experience, but of procedures as well, even
imaginative alternative actions can be evaluated. A particular behavior may then be patterned to optimize the
action taken. In some cases, the intellect may even forbid the execution of a particular instinctive drive. It is this
necessary intellectual control of the instincts which makes a culture successful. The application of this
intellectual control is a learned function and is called self-discipline.
A culture (civilization, society) consists of the accumulated behavior of the individuals within a group. See A
Basis for Morality. The basis for a human culture is a set of desired individual behaviors. The behaviors of the
individuals within a culture with respect to the behavioral rules of that culture is a matter of the ability of the
individual to behave intellectually, to understand the rules and to apply them to his own behavior (to exercise
intellectual restraint with respect to his own instinctive drives in consideration of the community desires).
CONCLUSION 1.
An intellectual animal is one that uses intellectual control (self-discipline) to augment desirable
instinctive behavior and to minimize inappropriate instinctive behavior. Through reason, the
moral (intellectual, ethical) human searches out and provides that behavior which optimizes
species survival.
In the case of the traditional family over the last 4 million years, the sex drive was shaped and controlled by
custom (culture) to insure the family unit, even now considered the most reliable way to raise children. The
female controlled sexual activity and used it as a tool to bond the male to her and her family. From him she
acquired protection and food gathering, especially needed during pregnancy and while caring for the very young.
Sexual practices vary from species to species. Each species has a complex set of physical and behavioral
characteristics as a result of its own particular evolutionary path. These result in behavioral systems wherein each
element evolved in concert with all other elements, both physical and behavioral. The human evolved as an
instinctive organism with certain intellectual characteristics. Human behavior is a result of the summation
between the two often competing behavioral elements: instinct and intellect. The human instinctive behavior
evolved in concert with the physical evolution. Human children require a long gestation and a long period of care
and training, requiring a highly cooperative participation by both father and mother. The physical characteristics
of the baby at birth dictated certain physical characteristics in the mother. The severity of the environment
dictated certain behaviors on the part of the mother and the father in order to insure their own survival and that of
their children which collectively in turn insures species survival.
Under any human moral/ethical standard, the proper raising of children is paramount. The optimum survivability
of the child is dependent on it, therefore the optimum survivability of the species is dependent on the collective
Human Sex
survivability of all of the children, the optimum survivability of life itself is dependent on the survivability of the
human species which in turn depends on the survivability of the individual child so it can pursue its duties as an
adult.
CONCLUSION 2. There are three elements in sexual reproduction which are required in the
human species for species survival. These, in the interest of species survival, must be held sacred
by the individuals in the species:
the joining of adult male and female in a cooperative unit, and in grave commitment, for the
purpose of rearing young,
the sexual mating of the adult male and female for the purpose of producing children,
the joint care of the child by the parents in full cooperation from conception to selfsufficiency, each parent performing those duties assigned by the evolution of the human
species.
CONCLUSION 3.
When these three elements are conducted under intellectual control (the one element which defines
the human species as unique from others) they are then moral and ethical. Any human behavior
which diminishes the positive effect of these functions in any way is, therefore, unethical and
immoral.
Other conclusions may be derived from these. Since the human has an intellect by which it can assess its
condition with respect to its behavior it is therefore immoral for a female to allow her child to be conceived
without first preparing for a consistent long term relationship between that child and its father, it is immoral for a
bonded couple to have a child that they will not be able to properly care for, divorce between the bonded couple
before discharging their responsibilities toward their dependent children is immoral, etc.
The maturation ratio between the human male and female is effectively one to one. This rate has been established
by evolution during the period of the hominid, approximately four million years. Was it always thus? Perhaps
not, but the end result after this long period of adjustment is so. This ratio is true across the entire breadth of the
species, even across all races. This indicates that the basic (normal, instinctive) unit of human culture is the
bonded pair. It also indicates that the instincts of the human are also based in the same way. The human male is
plagued with an instinctive jealousy, but never over two females at the same time. The jealousy indicates an
instinct of ownership of the particular female. The restriction to jealousy over one female indicates the lack of
consistent plural relationships. The female has the same instinct, although to a lesser extent. The female, on the
other hand, is enraged if spurned by her mate, indicating the long-term need for the mate. If polygamy was
natural in the species, then one sex or the other would be favored in the maturation ratio.
Unique among all mammals, the human female does not show her time, and, in fact, does not naturally know
when it is. This results in males who, unlike other mammal males, do not seek that time in the female but are
anxious to mate at all times. If the male is unencumbered by being bonded with a female and offspring, this
readiness extends to all attractive females. In turn this gives the female the power of selecting the mate she
wishes, which she selects for the purpose of a long term relationship which will extend through the raising of her
children. She need only be receptive, then use the same tools to bond the mate for the period that she needs him.
Human Sex
Once having bonded the male, she is hesitant to allow another, since in doing so she runs the risk of losing the
bonding with her mate, either through his losing interest and straying or through combat between the two males
over her.
All of these instincts are behavioral drives. The proper behavior is then intellectually calculated. For intellect to
provide proper behavior it is necessary to study real knowledge concerning the sexual requirements for long time
survival and well being of the species.
The most ancient and strongest social instinct in sexual organisms is the drive for sex.. The basic elements of any
culture provide a set of cultural rules to regulate acceptable sexual behavior.
CONCLUSION 4.
No culture (society, civilization) survives if the individuals within that group do not consistently
follow its rules (exercises intellectual control over its instincts). Since the sexual drive is by far the
strongest social (cultural) instinct, a barometer of the success of a given culture is the sexual
discipline of the individuals within that group.
CONCLUSION 5.
Since the instinct for sex is dominant, the sexual discipline of an individual within a culture is a
barometer of his ability (his moral/ethical capability) to contribute to that culture.
TOP
MODERN HUMAN SEXUAL PRACTICE

About one-third (mostly Christians) of modern society is currently attempting to maintain an attitude of sexual
discipline and the sanctity of the bonded and committed pair as the basic elements of culture. The balance (a
curious mixture of the lowest class and the academic elite) preach a gospel of sin and let sin. The current social
movement is toward the latter while the lure of sexual freedom is steadily eating away the former.
All human social instincts, from mother love to tribal cooperation, are diverging and degenerating at a rapid rate
(see The Degeneration of Man). Random mutations spare no instinct and nature is no longer allowed to cleanse
the gene pool. Many of man's instincts became obsolete and counter-productive when his social environment
changed. Others have since become damaging to society as the result of degeneration. There is little that we can
do at the present time to correct the source of these problems, but we can identify them and start working toward
minimizing their effect.
The unrestrained (modern) human, to put it mildly, is sexually bizarre. The physical sex that nature developed in
all mammals, heterosexual penis-vagina sex, is lost in the wilderness. Modern heterosexual couples regularly
Human Sex
engage in penis-oral and oral-vaginal sex, often at the same time. Then there is penis-anal, and even oral-anal
sex. Masturbation is common. A mixture of masturbation and one of the other forms of sex is also common.
Most men claim to prefer penis-oral sex, a practice that has nothing to do at all with procreation. Although some
of the other animals sniff around and play various sexual arousal games, none use any of the other practices as a
substitute for penis-vagina (normal) sex. Rare would be the stallion that mounted the wrong end of the mare.
It doesn't end there. About 10% of the human population is homosexual and bisexual. Describing the antics of
this group would take a couple of pages. The infamous bath houses, sex clubs and sadomasochist dungeons of
San Francisco house unbelievable permutations and combinations of every possible sex act. Since all of these
practices are socially acceptable (one's bedroom is private) and schools regularly teach our small children that it's
all a matter of personal choice, there is a lot of experimentation by our young.
Then there are the child molesters, rapists, and murder-rapists. A large portion of homosexual men prefer very
young boys. Sexual slavery of stolen young children is the cause of the disappearance of many. Worse yet is the
serial killer who obtains sexual pleasure from murder.
Placing a bunch of same-sex animals of the same species in the same pen will bring a variety of responses. If
they are male and territorial, they will usually fight. If not, such as most grazing animals, they will mill around
but get along. Once in a while, a male will raise up on another in mock sexual activity, but it's quickly
terminated. They will not engage in sexual intercourse. Pen up a bunch of same-sex humans and the sexual
activity will hardly slow. A South African male prison recently started issuing free condoms to all of its inmates
in an attempt to slow down the spread of HIV.
Then from a social standpoint, three or more in a bed is the latest teen-age rage, sexual promiscuity of married
couples with children is on the rise and pornography is now acceptable in cinema, and TV and widely available
on the internet.
In the animal kingdom (some primates excepted), sex for any other reason than procreation is rare. Sex for that
reason among humans is rare.
What are the repercussions of promiscuity? Read any newspaper. Divorce rates are sky-rocketing. Courts are
filled with cases arguing over child responsibility. Most child abuse cases involve step-parents or live-in lovers.
Child murder and abandonment are no longer rare occurrences. Most family murders are the result of sexual
promiscuity.
Sex is not hygienic. It would be hard to imagine any activity so adept at the transport of disease from one person
to another. Bodily fluids are freely exchanged with activity that rubs the skin and membranes thin. It would also
be difficult to find any disease that could not be transferred in this manner. There are about 50 known diseases
that are so connected with sex as to be known as STDs (sexually transmitted diseases). In Africa there are areas
where more than half of the population is infected with HIV (the AIDS virus). Asia is the new center for
worldwide HIV distribution, see The AIDS Nursery of the World. Among the 18-28 age group in many
American cities the rate is above 10%. HIV infection is rapidly becoming an acceptable condition in the modern
culture. Sex is also a major vehicle for the spread of viral diseases such as influenza and hepatitis.
But the major loss to humanity is the time spent in pursuing and performing sex. The office romance noon
Human Sex
'quicky' often lasts well into the afternoon. The jockying of mate and lover requires copious mental and time
expenditure. The subterfuge required for 'hanky-panky' sets the mental stage for lying and cheating in business
and government. The Clinton Whitehouse oral office is an example of the enormous cost to the species of
clandestine affairs. With almost everything the human does, the eventual goal is almost always sex. Huge
industries such as cosmetics, clothing, jewelry, cruises, and motels provide direct services for the sex trade. Enter
'sex' in a search engine on the internet and be inundated with pornography. Luxury items such as expensive
automobiles, condos on the beach, and lavish restaurants are used by many to promote their sexual activity.
Aphrodisiacs (Viagra is a huge success in the drug field and a real money maker, and women are clamoring for
their own version) are big business in much of the world, leading in one case to the near extinction of another
species. Even military uniforms are looked on as a path to a bedroom. And when the inevitable conflict results
between servicing a lover and caring for the needs of children, it is inevitably the children who suffer, even to the
murder of the children in rare cases.
Sexual pleasure has been shown to be chemical in nature. Sexual activity increases the chemical flow. Sex is,
therefore, addictive. To put it bluntly, sex as practiced by the modern human, is a useless, costly, troublesome,
wasteful, and disease ridden bestial practice with no redeeming feature.
It need not be.
CONCLUSION 6.
It is obvious that the collective sexual instincts of the human are in great disarray and quite
contrary to the survival of the species. It is, therefore, necessary for each human to exercise a
strong intellectual control over its sexual instincts. To do so is moral. Not to do so is immoral/
unethical.
CONCLUSION 7.
To judge the morality of a particular sex act is to assess that act with respect to the optimum
survivability of the species and individual, in that order of importance. If it harms, or is likely to
harm, others or self, then it is immoral. The degree of immorality is directly proportional to the
severity of the harm and/or its likelihood. Private sexual acts committed between a bonded pair for
the purpose of procreation and for strengthening the family bond, and that are not harmful to any
party, are moral.
TOP
SEX IN THE FUTURE

The goal of man is a benign, successful and compassionate culture, where success is defined as continuous
cultural development. Such a culture under normal (natural) evolution is damaging to the species since it
subsidizes harmful mutations resulting in a rapidly diminishing physical and mental health. The end result of
Human Sex
such a course is species extinction - the opposite of the goal. If man insists on a benign, successful and
compassionate culture, forbids genetic tampering in the human gene pool and at the same time insisting on
unfettered reproduction without restriction of genetic quality, the human will become extinct. That policy is
species suicide. Even now there are more than 8,000 cataloged genetic defects in the human gene pool, with
untold thousands yet to be discovered and with thousands more added each day.
Most of the natural mutations are caused by sexual reproduction. Ironically the very feature that allowed the
development of the human in the time frame experienced, has become a mortal enemy of his well being.
Cloning, properly perfected, avoids these particular mutations. It would be only a temporary stop gap since it
retains all of the current defects and only slows down the degeneration. No matter how the genetic structure is
formed for the new human, accidents will happen in the process.
In the center of the reproductive process is the genetic structure (DNA) being passed from one generation to the
next. Eventually the human must face the inevitable. He must gain engineering control of this genetic structure.
Perhaps then is the time to make sweeping changes in the human.
In modern society, where male and female are considered equal and interchangeable, the female may, and is
encouraged to do so, perform all of the male tasks along with her own. She may not only bear and raise the
children but provide the livelihood as well. The male, deprived of his contribution to the family and his particular
contribution to society, is no longer necessary. Modern feminists envision eliminating the male completely
through cloning. For some strange reason, the modern male has accepted these terms and is now little more than
a stud, servicing any needy heterosexual female who happens along, or the lesbian who wishes to become
pregnant. He may now act as the juvenile male, chasing all comers, all of his life, without cultural censure.
Modern cultural style dictates that the female become more masculine, complete with coarse and suggestive
language and the male more feminine, complete with jewelry, carefully disarranged hair and a propensity to
weep openly at the slightest provocation A result of this new independence (almost open war) between the sexes
and the idea that sex is interchangeable, is a decided increase in homosexual activity. The local motel, which at
one time was the noontime hotbed for sinning heterosexuals, now caters all week to same sex couples.
From the new cultural viewpoint, the male will become useless baggage. With the female propensity for a
feminist society, one which must constantly guard against male domination, and with the handy tool of abortion
for sex selection, the male will be tolerated only in limited numbers. Through female cloning the male may be
eliminated entirely.
On the other hand, the fetus, during gestation in the womb, is susceptible to widespread damage. Modern females
are careless about their living style, casually aborting a fetus at will, imbibing in alcohol, tobacco and drugs and
otherwise living a stressful life style. All of this effects the quality of the new human. As an alternative to a
female culture, the male could develope artificial wombs that would provide near perfect environments for the
fetus. Then by cloning the male, the female could be eliminated.
Perhaps the end goal is to abandon sexual reproduction altogether. The human then becomes a self-impregnating
hermaphrodite. Each child would be a clone of the parent. Evolution would have then gone full circle. The
genetic and social advantages are many. The species can then become truly an intellectual species. Concerts
could again become events for the enjoyment of music instead of tools for seduction. Cultures would be greatly
simplified.
Human Sex
TOP
READER'S COMMENTS
READER'S COMMENT: Now I've seen it all. You religious fanatics will try anything. First there was creation
science. Now it's sex science. Why can't you get it? Sexual restrictions are superstitious nonsense.
AUTHOR'S REPLY: Creation science is based on opinion - argument over dates and the meaning and
classification of fossils. Not so this text on sex. The basic premises are proven in A Basis for Morality. The
requirement for human sexual discipline is merely a restatement of those premises. From this basis every sexual
behavior may be analyzed and judged by any reasoning human. To deny these premises is to deny our entire
factual knowledge base on genetics and evolution. I have no quarrel if you wish to discard religious based sexual
restrictions on the basis that it is dogma, but the sexual restrictions stated in this text are based on real
knowledge. On the other hand the sexual behavior countenanced by the current intellectual elite ideology (PC) is
entirely based on dogma. If you reject religious dogma in favor of liberal/socialist/Marxist dogma, you have
merely selected the dogma which fits your particular (degenerative) instinctive drives, drives that, when
uncontrolled, are archaic and no longer applicable to modern culture.
READER'S COMMENT: The idea of the human without male/female sex is ridiculous. It would no longer be a
human. You picture a cold world. We'd be better off extinct.
AUTHOR'S REPLY: You don't understand! I, too, am terribly sad. But the human is no longer a male/female
species. We are now sinking into an abyss driven by ever degenerating sexual instincts. Every possible act is now
incorporated into the scene and is acceptable within our culture. Our politics, now focused on the individual,
supports 'diversity' and destroys the original natural family consisting of the bonded parent pair and their
offspring. I not only can not see any cultural action which can restore us to the original relationship, I can
envision no cultural mechanism which can insure it more than a very short time. The primitive emotional
(instinctive) human is now at a crossroads. Will it choose to modify its very spirit into that of a fully intellectual
creature or will it choose to become extinct? We are the last of the primitive/animal/humans. Will we choose to
die rather than change? Or will we choose to become the intellectual saviors and protectors of all life? And
thereby insure our own immortality as well as that of all life.
READER'S COMMENT: Sex is bestial?? An incredible conclusion.
Human Sex
AUTHOR'S REPLY: Read it again. I did not say that sex was a bestial practice. I said that sex as practiced by
those following the modern academic elitist ideology (PC) was bestial. There is a difference between lust and
love, one denied by the liberal/socialist/Marxists who are intent on destroying the family unit in favor of the
individual and in making our culture one that caters to the instant gratification of the individual. By addicting the
citizen to serving his instincts and promising a culture that will allow full freedom in gratifying those instincts, it
is much easier to keep him under control. The greatest fear in a socialist government is an intellectual citizen.
They will purge them regularly.
The process of evolution develops various species. Within a species the individual is regularly tortured and
slaughtered by this process in favor of the enhancement and survival of the species. The human is one of these
species. By nature the behavior of the individual human should enhance the survivability and enhancement of the
species. Evolution designed the human to function as a bonded pair with offspring as a unit. One or more of these
units collected together in ancient times to form cultural groups. Only when over-population demanded huge
groups to collect together did individual (as opposed to family group) behavior become a concern in politics.
Eugenics
EUGENICS
Envision every human as equal at birth; in beauty, health, mental health, social strength and intelligence.
A designed evolutionary system with goals and planning would provide all of these for every human. Only
then can a truly egalitarian society be obtained.
It is natural (ethical, moral, expected) behavior for the human species to modify natural processes to its
advantage. As the human species learns more and more about the genetic structure of the human, and its
implications in form and culture, it will apply that knowledge (make use of it). To do so is in the nature of
the human. Mistakes will be made. That, also, is human. Some will use that knowledge to take unfair
advantage of others. That, also, is human. The human will then learn from and overcome from those
mistakes and take steps to continuously perfect the application. That, also, is human.
The first requirement for any application of genetic knowledge to the welfare and survival of the species is
that each such application be technically justified beforehand. This requires that the application be
pretested for validity and tested for adverse side effects. It must then be shown to have a provable net
positive effect, with adequate safety margins.
The second requirement for any application of genetic knowledge to the welfare and survival of the species
is that each such application be morally and ethically justified beforehand. This requires that the
application be pretested for its inherent morality and all social side effects to be evaluated. It must then be
shown to have a provable net positive morality, with adequate safety margins. Only then may it be applied.
BACKGROUND
HISTORY OF EUGENICS
A NEW EUGENICS
EUGENICS IN THE FUTURE
INVESTING IN THE FUTURE
file:///C|/onelifebook/ethics/eugenics.html (1 of 11)1/25/2007 4:51:06 PM
Eugenics
normal, not expected, unethical, immoral).

welfare.
BACKGROUND
Eugenics - It's a dirty eight letter word in most circles, and it's been out of circulation for quite a while, but better
start getting use to it. It's coming back. In fact many modern social engineering processes fit directly in even
now. It may be given a new name, that's the way things are done now, like pornography is now mature or adult,
homosexual becomes gay, the masculinizing of the female is called feminism, a degenerating social culture
calls itself liberal, progressive, modern, politically correct, or democratic, dropping bombs is now called
humanitarian, and abortion, with an incredible macabre twist, is now family planning.
EUGENICS: the science that deals with the improvement of races and breeds, especially the
human race, through the control of hereditary factors. From Webster's New Universal Unabridged
Dictionary
This is a positive definition. It defines eugenics. It says what eugenics is: a science. It says what eugenics is for:
the improvement of the human genetic specification. It says how this improvement can come about: through
control of the genetic configuration. Read it carefully. The entire future of man depends on this definition.
This definition does not say that eugenics is a philosophy. It does not say that eugenics is a political tool for
shaping human culture. It does not say that its functions are determined by imagination, conjecture, philosophy,
spirituality, or ideology. It says, instead, that eugenics is a science. It produces real knowledge. It can be
measured. It can be verified. It must have a desirable net effect. And, if a particular eugenics procedure does
not meet these tests then it must not be used.
Unfortunately, in the past, it has not been a rigorous science, nor has it been used as a positive influence on the
welfare and survival of the human species. Most of this has been due to ignorance about genetics, being based
primarily on human experience, which is and was quite extensive, with animal husbandry. It works, the theory
goes, on selecting and breeding a fine herd of cattle, so therefore, it should work with people. Not so!
The fact that this practice has been misused in prior (ignorant) times does not preclude its possible use today.
This past experience does, however, raise warning flags about its use. The human was too eager then to use
genetic control processes before they were proven to be beneficial and those processes were applied without
sufficient concern about unexpected negative effects on human culture.
Eugenics
The primary concern in the use of eugenics is in the science. Science is based on measurable and provable fact.
Scientific knowledge stands on its own proof. Science must not consider dogma (imagination, hearsay,
conjecture, opinion, ideology, spirituality, political dogma, etc.) in the applied processes it produces. This
concept is diametrically opposed to the modern academic elitist ideology (PC), a secular religion based on
emotion. Modern social 'knowledge' is based on the conjecturing of the latest pop social author. Most, if not all,
modern social 'knowledge' is dogma.
Conclusion 1:
Eugenics (genetic engineering) concepts require measurable proof of net satisfactory performance
before implementation on the general public.
A secondary concern, one which is secondary in importance only because it should not be an issue unless the
first concern is satisfied, is a matter of ethics and morality related directly to the proposed eugenics process.
Conclusion 2:
Eugenics (genetic engineering) concepts require calculated proof of satisfactory cultural ethics
before implementation on the general public.
Genetics engineering overlaps with social engineering to the extent that most social engineering processes have
an effect on the gene pool. Some social engineering procedures have profound and long term genetic effects.
Since the genetic effects of these processes were never considered, most are probably quite damaging, no one
knows. The birth control pill provides a change in the ratio of births between the productive and non-productive
classes, in favor of the non-productive class. Abortion provides another shift in birth rates between classes,
especially between productive and third world countries. Rewarding unwed young, many are juvenile, mothers is
a sure way to bias genetic structure toward those who are irresponsible.
Conclusion 3:
There will come a time when we must reconsider a current basic social understanding: that anyone
can have as many children as they wish, without regard to their capability for caring for the
children and raising them properly, and regardless of the genetic diseases they will pass along to
the children, while depending on the community to fill in for their social, physical, mental, and
moral incompetence.
Conclusion 4:
The human is now an endangered species. There will come a time when we must carefully examine
every social change that we wish to make, to insure that we do no additional harm to the human
gene pool.
When viewing the poverty and criminal classes, the social liberal claims cultural malfunction as the cause, rather
than genetic differences, and feels that it is the duty of the working successful to provide for those who have been
their unfortunate victims. The social conservative points out that schools are available throughout the US, that
there are copious help wanted ads in every newspaper, and that no one is tied to a particular geographic location,
so it is as much a matter of personal choice as cultural error. Therefore, don't feed the lazy bums so they will be
forced to go to work. "Why should we work two jobs and have our wives work also just to make ends meet while
a large portion of our money is confiscated and handed over to people who spend their days shooting pool,
Eugenics
drinking beer and making babies?" they ask.

The social liberal then plays the other tune. "These are unfortunate incompetents who need our help to stay
alive," they then claim. The liberal conservative returns that if that is the case, we should see to it that there are
fewer babies in that bunch so at least the problem won't grow, a proposal that has to do with species allocation of
resources and absolutely nothing to do with genetics.
"Heavens! You sound just like Hitler. What are you? Some kind of eugenics nut?" the liberal then exclaims as he
then shifts back to the first condition: that there is no genetic difference between the haves and have nots, so any
reproductive restriction would only be cruel.
The facts are that evolution is primarily an individual process. It is the individual and its progeny who experience
the mutation. Farmers learned long ago that if a trait in an animal is desired, it must not be allowed to run in the
herd. It must be isolated and carefully bred to other like animals. Put a half dozen purebred dogs in a pen for a
few generations and there will be only one kind of dog. In a like manner, the human runs free. Any trait in one
human will show up in others all over the world and in every class or tribe. Any attempt to adjust genetics
through group control would require unbearable restrictions on personal freedoms and severely restrict the
intellectual growth of the species.
This is why it so important in our society not to segregate, and favor, certain groups among the able in our social
structure. Every able human should be required to work, under the same terms. This requires every able human to
prepare itself for work, under equal opportunity. And every social rule should apply equally to every able human.
Multiculturalism is the exact opposite in philosophy. It preaches the very social segregation causing our social
problems.
Those handicapped in body, mind or criminal inclination, those who are not able to care for themselves within
normal society and require public assistance, must be taken care of in the most humane and economical way
possible - through institutions. To allow these groups to have more children is stupid, not from a genetics
standpoint, but from the standpoint of the welfare of the child and its burden on the producing portion of the
society.
TOP
HISTORY
It all started with the domestication of animals by the human, perhaps two million years ago. The first was
probably the dog, used for hunting, defense, a warning system against predators and other marauding humans,
and as a loyal companion. It was obvious from the beginning that if a large dog was needed, it did not come from
a small bitch and sire. It didn't take long to discover that the best dogs came from the best parents.
Eugenics
Then came animal husbandry, perhaps some 10,000 years or so ago. It was discovered that properly selected and
cared for animals could provide a consistent source of food and other living materials. Cattle could be tamed and
herded and produce milk, meat and hides. Some strains of cattle were better producers than others, some were
easier to herd than others. Desirable strains became prized and were carefully segregated from undesirable strains
in order to maintain that desirability. It was not long after that, the human found that domestic animals could be
cared for without a nomadic life-style, provided food was grown for them. In addition to the animals they could
also grow fruit and vegetables for themselves. They quickly selected the best plants available, then carefully
selected the seeds from only the best of those. This was a very long time before Mendel.
Then, a long time ago, the human noticed the same characteristics in his fellows. The big strong man with the big
strong mate had big strong sons and daughters. Not probably understanding the social implications, they also
noticed that the sons and daughters of tribal leaders also tended to become tribal leaders. Royal families came
into being. An understanding of heredity, perhaps limited but still a recognition, is not new to the human.
Ancient Egyptian pharaohs even practiced incest to keep their blood lines clean. Greek mythology shows some
of these same beliefs.
Eugenics, as it is perceived today, began in the last half of the nineteenth century primarily due to the efforts of
Thomas Malthus, a preacher and Herbert Spencer, a sociologist. Their primary effort was directed toward the
criminal, mentally ill and lower classes, especially those on welfare. They believed that unfettered reproduction
by these groups would, in time, degrade the general population. They tended to ignore social conditions and
pressures and attributed the failure of these groups to inferior genetics. They were, of course, only partly right.
Whereas genetic error can cause these conditions, a large number of these conditions were caused by social
pressures. At that time, however, genetic mechanisms were unknown. The DNA was not described until 1954
and the human genome is still being mapped (1999).
Sir Francis Galton, a known scientist, wrote Hereditary Genius in 1869. He described his study of upper class
families in which he observed the qualities of intellect. leadership and artistic ability. His work was far more a
description of how upper class families furnish superior environments for their children than any study of genetic
variation. He professed to show genetic differences between the lower and upper class. He coined the term
"eugenics" and called for more children from the upper class and fewer from the lower classes.
Eugenics in the US reached its peak in the pre-WWII period. Many had become convinced that the most efficient
way to deal with a number of social problems such as mental illness, poverty and crime was to curtail
reproduction in these classes. Involuntary sterilization laws were enacted in many states, mostly aimed at the
mentally ill or retarded.
It is with Hitler and the Nazi movement that eugenics became a cursed process. Nazi Germany enacted strong
racial hygiene laws in 1933. The Nazi Hereditary Health Courts was formed to review eugenics proposals and
approved very many of them. As time progressed they became more and more perverse in their decisions.
Euthanasia of the insane and mentally deficient, as well as others judged to be undesirable began. Aryan women
were encouraged as a patriotic duty to bear more children and to select Aryan fathers.
Herman J Muller, scientist and Nobel Laurette, spoke out against eugenics as it was then practiced in his Out of
the Night in 1935, saying: "with its present methods and outlook, powerless to work any positive change for the
good", "doing incalculable harm by lending a false appearance of scientific basis to advocates of race and class
prejudice, defenders of vested interests of church and state, Fascists, Hitlerites, and reactionaries generally," and
Eugenics
"the more unequal the opportunities and the conditions of living are, in the society of which an individual is a
member, the more largely will his success or failure, his knowledge or ignorance, his mental activity or
inactivity, as compared with other men's be determined by these circumstances of his social and material
environment."
Following on from Muller's line of reasoning: It has become a great fear of many that the most pressing concern
raised by advances in genetic testing is that it could cause society to devalue certain individuals because of their
genetic heritage. The history of eugenics in the 20th century suggests this is a legitimate fear.
The study of genetics began to emerge after WWII. The nature-nurture argument began. In their widely read
book, Heredity, Race and Society, two Columbia University scientists, L. C. Dunn and Theodosius Dobzhansky
asserted that, "We come into the world as a bundle of possibilities bequeathed to us by our parents and other
ancestors. Our nurture comes from the world about us. What happens to the nurture that comes in depends,
however, on the nature that receives it." It was even then becoming obvious to those knowledgeable in
genetics, that even the application of the nurture (experience, education, training) depended on the nature
(genetically specified mechanisms) of the individual.
Civil rights movements began growing in the 1960s amid growing concerns about racism in society. Those who
recognized the importance of genetics in human behavior were forced by public opinion to be cautious. They still
are to this day. In a display of uncommon scientific stupidity, modern political correctness (the mantra of the
academic elite) sharply criticizes any scientific discovery which might possibly show natural causes for any
behavioral difference based on sexual, mental, criminal, economic or racial class. They choose to believe, in the
face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that social pressures are the entire cause. Since scientific
discovery is from this academic elite class, it is heavily influenced by their ideology, resulting in severe scientific
hypocrisy.
The United States Supreme Court overturned anti-miscegenation laws in 1967, and the United States Congress
substantially eliminated racist features of our immigration laws in l968.
E. O. Wilson, the eminent Harvard biologist, first wrote The New Synthesis (1975) and later the Pulitzer Prize
winning On Human Nature. He said: "Can the cultural evolution of higher ethical values gain a direction and
momentum of its own and completely replace genetic evolution? I think not. The genes hold culture on a leash.
The leash is very long, but inevitably values will be constrained in accordance with their effects on the human
gene pool. The brain is a product of evolution. Human behavior - like the deepest capacities for emotional
response which drive and guide it - is the circuitous technique by which human genetic material has been and
will be kept intact".
Comments on the history of eugenics

Rational thinking is extremely difficult on human culture. The bases for all human cultures are not rational. All
current human cultures were established by and are based on the irrational - the emotional drives of the human
instincts. The most perfect logic fails miserably in its analysis and projection of even the simplest of cultural
processes. Human culture is political, with all the subterfuge, sophistry, and dishonesty that term implies. The
instant that a single bit of new real knowledge is uncovered by science, it is seized on by one or more political
groups, who then twist and turn it to their own advantage.
Eugenics
This is why it is so necessary for humankind to reconstruct human culture, to abandon its current hodgepodge of
sub-cultures based on cultural evolution (a cut and try process without goal or plan) in favor of an intellectual
culture based on real knowledge, one with real plans and goals.
As the human collective culture responded to knowledge about heredity, that knowledge became politicized. One
social group used it to attack another, based on social differences. Eugenics as a science became a torture
machine for social inquisitions, and ceased being a science. If eugenics should become a science, and it certainly
will, it must not be used as a social tool. It is a tool that may be used by politicos for right or wrong reasons. No
process should use the human as a guinea pig. Each of eugenics' proposed processes must pass the test of moral
analysis before being applied. That test is the net effect on the survival and welfare of the human species.
There is no detectable correlation between human construction and human behavior. Many have tried various
means such as: shape of the skull, color of skin, lines on the palm of the hand, astrological sign, economic class,
IQ tests, conduct, etc. Every attempt leads to as many failures as successes.
TOP
A NEW EUGENICS
Nature once provided man with a cave for shelter. It was not designed for the task, it only happened to be there
for our use. It was cold, drafty and damp. Water had to be hauled in from a nearby stream. A trip to the bathroom
in the middle of the night often meant wading in the snow for a couple of hundred yards each way. A fire that
was warm enough in the cave choked its occupants with smoke. A baby with a bad cold either lived or died. The
warmth of a bed of skins was shared with mice and cockroaches. There was some protection from the elements,
and for that we were thankful, but it was far from comfortable.
It took a while but the human changed things. We now live in comfortable homes with inside plumbing, electric
lights, central heat, air conditioning, a two car enclosed garage, and, yes, a television set.
The human genome which forms us and, through our instincts, guides us, also happened. It was shaped by the
elements in the same manner as the cave. It was only partially designed for our task of that time, of living in that
cave. Millions of years of trial and error left us with a genome as primitive as that cave, and it is littered with the
genetic garbage of all the genetic failures along the way. It offers a living for most of us, but many suffer from its
inadequacies.
The human genome was certainly not designed for modern living, and is now degenerating under an evolution
which we have crippled. It's time we took a hard look at that old cave and see if we can bring it up to modern
needs.
Eugenics
TOP
EUGENICS IN THE FUTURE

The sperm supplies a complete copy of one of the two sets of nuclear DNA (nDNA) required for the human. This
set may include an X or a Y chromosome. The mother's egg is much more complex. It also contains one of the
two sets of nuclear DNA but it also contains an X chromosome, never a Y. In the new human and starting at
conception these two sets of chromosomes, the genome, work in harmony to supply the basic physical and neural
pattern. If each cell in the human body works properly, these patterns will result in a human being which
accurately reflects the coded specification in the genome.
A human nDNA set consists of 22 chromosomes. The human genome consists of two of these nDNA sets. In the
female human both sets are the same, they both carry the X chromosome. In the male the two sets of nDNA
differ in that one of the sets contains an X chromosome and the other a Y chromosome. The resulting human is
an average between the functioning of the two nDNA sets, the physical and neural differences between the male
and female being the result of the averaging between the X and Y chromosome in the male genome.
The egg from the female, however is much more complex. It is a single cell and it carries the mother's nuclear
DNA contribution. This cell also contains the mitochondrial DNA. The mother supplies all of the mitochondrial
DNA. The father contributes none. This mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) provides the coded specifications for the
construction, maintenance and function of the cell itself. If these function patterns are all proper, the cell is able
to properly execute the commands from the genome. The actual production by the cell is determined by its
position in the body. It may produce bone mass, a neural signal, blood cells, hair, skin, etc.
Within the nDNA there are function elements called genes. Each gene is the specification for the construction of
a particular protein. When a gene is activated, it sends this pattern to the cell in which it resides with the
command to produce that particular protein.
Cloning has recently been headline material. The first successful cloning was with sheep. The single set of
nDNA in the sheep's egg was physically replaced with a complete genome from another cell source in the sheep's
body. Since the egg and its mtDNA came from the mother as well as the genome, the newborn was a genetic
copy of the mother - a clone. There is no essential difference between cloning a sheep and cloning a human.
Cloning a male is much more difficult since there is no male counterpart of the embryo cell in which to
transplant the genome from the male. Since that embryonic cell must always come from a female, a true male
clone is still some distance away.
A spin-off from cloning is now quite possible. By substituting a genome that is not from the mother into the egg,
a hybrid is produced which has the capability within the cell with its mtDNA but with the physical and neural
specifications of the genome. Both males and females could be produced this way. They would not be clones of
the mother although those features determined by mtDNA would be hers.
Eugenics
This division of features between nDNA and mtDNA provides an interesting and fertile ground for greatly
improving the basic genetic structure of the human. Defects in the mtDNA reflect in genetic defects (diseases)
which are carried only through the mother. Those could all be eliminated through perfecting the host structure of
the embryonic cell (the egg). This perfection process is within the horizon of current knowledge. Such cells could
be cultured. The implication is that an idealized embryonic cell could be produced, one which could properly
comply with any nDNA instruction and therefore useful throughout the species. Once introduced through
intervention, it would become permanent in the genetic process and carried through the mother into future
generations in the same manner as now used. The mutation rate is quite slow in mtDNA so a single introduction
should be good for a thousand generations or more. Periodic testing could insure the integrity of the embryonic
egg within a given generational strain and if found defective it could be replaced by a new one as required.
The current mapping of the human genome has produced many tools that will become quite useful in future
eugenics work. Still quite primitive and useful only for very short DNA strings, they nevertheless provide great
hope for future manipulation on a much larger scale, even the human genome for example. We are currently able
to read a DNA sequence into computer memory. We are also capable of taking a pattern from a computer
memory and producing the corresponding DNA sequence.
The implication is that once we understand the functions of the various genes in the DNA and are able to identify
those which are defective and cause genetic diseases in the resulting human, we will be able to read into
computer memory the genetic pattern of a parent, make the necessary corrections in the computer, then read out
of the computer into an nDNA string which can then be used in the cloning process. Once this new string of
DNA is introduced, it will propagate through future generations in the same manner as the original would have
done. Mutational stability should remain good, even with the normal sexual reproduction process, for many
generations. If the string should mutate in future generations, the same procedure can be used again.
Future work will include investigation into the relationships between certain genetic configurations and
corresponding physical and mental features. When these relationship are found, birth design catalogs may be
composed. Parents may then choose to substitute certain idealized features in lieu of those which naturally occur
in their own gene set into a a new gene set which may be utilized in their child. In a like manner, the instincts and
moods may be investigated and substituted also. Since ideas of beauty, health and social behavior are relatively
universal and uniform among humans and those ideas change relatively little with time, these attributes, once
implemented, will need little change in future generations.
Each step in this development of the designer child will be expensive. At the forefront in this development will
be those parents who can afford the expenditure and are adventurous enough to commit their progeny and their
resources to better their own strain. This, then, is the new intellectual evolution. In lieu of death and misery for
all as the tool for human development, the brave and the successful will pave the way while the timid and less
successful will watch and wait. The brave and successful will be the guinea pigs that will blaze the trail. No one
should be forced to participate. As the process becomes developed, it will quickly become safer and far less
expensive. When the process is tried and true, then all should be given the opportunity. Genetic screening and
correction should, in time become a standard part of the birth process. Only then will all humankind be truly
created equal, by bringing all to the optimum condition.
Eugenics
TOP
INVESTING IN THE FUTURE

If the human society survives its current degeneration due to natural evolution long enough, eugenics will be
developed and applied, even though no concerted species wide effort is made. It may take an extended time,
perhaps 500 to 1,000 years, a significant period in light of the rate of human degeneration. If the society
collapses before the underlying causes are recognized and corrected, then the species will become extinct.
Electronics (computers and such) is the current economic growth field. Medicine is also growing at a fast clip.
The new field, however, one that will in time eclipse all of these, is molecular genetics. Modified, special
purpose, life forms are being developed. Current experimentation includes hybrid biological/electronic devices,
biological computer memories and research leading to the minimum molecular complexity for life. Creation of
new life forms directly from biological raw (non-living) materials are quite possible in the near future.
The genome project has been enlightening. The human genome is being mapped. Current work on this project
carries little resemblance to that envisioned when it started. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of new techniques,
ways of looking at the problem, solutions to problems not even realized before starting, have poured from the
inventive minds working on it. But knowing its construction is a long way from knowing the functions within it,
and how to correct it or improve on it.
A human culture is capable, when faced with a cause of sufficient importance, of a culture wide concerted effort.
Witness the US during WWII and the subsequent cold war. An effort equal in scope to our military since WWII
over a similar time period would provide the technical infrastructure for negating natural evolution and
correcting the human genetic structure throughout the world, a gift from the US to every living human.
It would be a great adventure, collecting the finest human minds and providing them with the facilities to
eliminate a sizable portion of all the ills the human is now afflicted with. We are capable of doing it to kill
people, why not do it for the sake of saving an endangered species - us?
RECENT NEWS
Los Angeles Times - Washington Post News Service, May 12,1999
Healthy girls born after sickle cell gene excised.
Genetic researchers have for the first time used high-tech reproductive techniques to remove the threat of sickle
cell disease from a black family's lineage.
Using a combination of in vitro fertilization and genetic analysis on a single cell taken from 3-day-old embryos,
Eugenics
a team from the Weill Medical College of Cornell University helped a couple produce healthy twin girls who
neither suffer from the lethal disease nor carried the defective gene that causes it.
Although the technique had been previously used to produce children free of cystic fibrosis, Taylor-Sachs
disease and certain sex-linked disorders, this was the first time it had been used for such a common genetic
disease.
(Ed., note - not only were the children protected but they will not contribute to further spreading of the disease in
their progeny.)
Human Psychology
A Look at Psychology
Man's real (provable, measurable) knowledge is quite extensive. Through astronomy and associated
studies, he has explored his relationship with the universe. Through physics and chemistry he has studied
the properties and relationships of the very matter of which the universe is constructed. Through biology
and associated studies he has described the variety of flora and fauna on earth and learned the
relationships between the various forms of living things. Microbiology is now mapping the human genome
and is experimenting with genetic manipulation. Admittedly, man does not know everything yet, and may
never, but for his physical relationships with the universe he has established systems of inquiry, methods
of approach, and standards for knowledge acceptance.
He has not yet, but will or perish, do the same for his social relationships.
FOREWORD
BEHAVIOR BASICS
TRAINING AND EDUCATION
NEURAL MECHANISM VARIATION
IS THE HUMAN INTELLIGENT?
MALE FEMALE INTERCHANGEABILITY
WASTED BRAIN POWER
WHAT DOES THE HUMAN SEEK
OBSOLETE INSTINCTS
READER'S COMMENTS
FOREWORD
Each of man's physical sciences started as ideas (theories, philosophies), which were then endlessly challenged,
studied and measured. Those parts of each which were proven true (or sufficiently true to be utilized) were
immediately pressed into the service of man or saved as foundations for future application. Such knowledge
builds civilizations. Each bit of knowledge so-gained is universal in the service of man. It crosses all national
boundaries. It may be translated into many languages, but the meaning is the same. Unlike subjective
'knowledge' derived from ideology, religion, conjecture, imagination, speculation, elitism and just plain
ignorance, this knowledge is the common denominator for all man, transcending racial, geographic, gender,
ideological and ethnic boundaries.
file:///C|/onelifebook/psy/psyintro.html (1 of 19)1/25/2007 4:51:08 PM
Human Psychology
There is no factual basis for modern social man. All modern cultures are based on ancient tribal hand-me-downs
in various mixtures, liberally laced with self-serving more modern ideological ranting. Across the earth there are
myriads of cultures. Each has a unique value system. Most have unique languages. All are certain in their beliefs
(superstitions, ideologies, politics, religions). There are thousands in the US alone, from the elitist ideologue
graduates of our liberal arts schools, to the Watts district in Los Angeles.
Psychology is the pivotal social science. Its shoulders support the social world of man. Its conclusions are
the basis for all other social science investigations and applications. Any psychological error is
compounded throughout civilization.
Psychology:
(A) that science dealing with the mind and mental processes, feelings, desires, etc.
(B) the science of human and animal behavior.
Source: Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary.
More and more, as man advances toward an objective culture, the beliefs of this science will determine its shape.
Its beliefs are basic to education, for example. Educators learn from psychology how a child should be taught,
what the child should be taught, and use its methods as a basis for judging the progress of the child. The
education of the child determines the culture of his generation. Psychological beliefs are also an important basis
for all other social studies. Teachers, journalists, lawyers, bureaucrats, politicians, and judges must all study
psychology as the basis for all of their other studies. Every fault in psychological belief is then amplified in our
social structure. All social studies require basic and factual knowledge about the nature (behavior) of man. These
must come from the field of psychology. Anthropology, for example, studies the behaviors (culture) of various
groups of people. Such studies require basis, otherwise the data has no reference and thus has no meaning. Such
studies are only as accurate as the basis by which the study is conducted. If the psychological basis is in error, all
information from the study may be worthless and, and worst yet, misleading.
Modern psychology is ideological and political as opposed to scientific, and deliberately so. Further, the
ideological basis is not only archaic and outmoded, it was deeply flawed from the beginning. Rather
than acting as a conduit of knowledge to bring man's social world into the modern age, psychology now
acts as a barrier instead, substituting 'fact' of its own and insisting that it be accepted as truth.
see READERS COMMENTS below
Admittedly, there is need for conjecture, imagination, philosophy, creativity and hearsay in the field of
psychology, in the same manner as in every other scientific field. Take physics, for example. There is a dream
world in physics, way out there on the edge of comprehension, where scientists are searching for new
knowledge. From this searching come the realities of tomorrow's world. To the engineer of today, however, in
designing a product for the use of man now, that knowledge is not proven and is therefore not useful. It is not
solid enough to incorporate into the service of man today. Only an idiot would take an experimental material, for
example, and design it into service as mounts to secure a jet engine to an airframe. It would be an invitation for
disaster. We daily institute unbased, untried and unproven teaching methods in our public schools, all based on
modern psychological dream-world beliefs, a far greater disaster than a mere commercial air liner crash into the
center of a busy city.
Human Psychology
So the field of psychology needs to be modified. It needs to be divided much in the same manner as, for example,
physics and mechanical engineering. The current field could remain, with all its cloud nine thinking, but as a no
no land for the educators, politicians, journalists, etc., who apply psychological knowledge to the public. Across
the campus, where the hard-to-please no-nonsense engineers are taught, a new psychology should be created.
One which requires factual premises, short simple lines of logic, and frequent verification through measurement.
These then would be the working psychologists on whom we could depend for factual psychological knowledge
on which to build our culture and the system of education which sustains that culture.
The establishment of a psychological perspective, the viewpoint from which basic premises may be determined,
must be approached with great care, since the perspective itself sets the specification against which all things are
judged. There is no current evidence that man, or life itself for that matter, has any value with respect to the
universe. Life happened. Man happened. Both are inconsequential with respect to the universe (at least it appears
so at this time). So, - on what basis may 'normal' behavior be judged? It is especially nebulous with an adaptive
creature like man, that is likely to shift to fit (or deny) any given set of expectations.
Judging man against a specification developed through philosophy using imagination, hearsay and conjecture, to
fit preconceived ideological and political standards (as is current practice) is sheer lunacy. Judging man, a life
form, against the form and process of the universe, an inanimate construction, is not likely to bear fruit either.
Judging man, however, against the life system which formed him, is a more likely process.
TOP
BEHAVIOR BASICS
The concept of behavior is normally associated with animal mobility. The biological mechanisms which give an
animal mobility (biological motors) are actuated by other biological mechanisms (neural) which control the
action. Mobile living creatures occupy all living levels of complexity from the single cell to the most complex of
animals. The most primitive as well as the most advanced of modern animals still employ neural processes
billions of years old. More advanced animals add on (as opposed to substitute for) new features. Modern man has
an aggregation of neural processes, both new and ancient.
Even though totally contradicted by research into the structure, function, and evolutionary development of the
human brain (see The Human Brain), modern psychology insists that the human brain is an excessively large
intelligence container, one which through proper education may be arbitrarily molded to fit any cultural pattern.
This archaic concept is thousands of years old. It has no truth in it. Since this is the view of psychologists, it is
taught in the schools to future psychologists and educators (usually with embellishments on each successive
cycle, see Dynamics). This cycling of opinion, conjecture, imagination and hearsay (psychological dogma) and
refusal to maintain pace with current knowledge is reminiscent of the Flat Earth Society.
From a study of the physical structure of the brain, the mechanism of evolution, and comparative studies between
Human Psychology
various complexities of modern life, there appear to be 6 mechanisms in the human brain, all simultaneously
operating at various degrees of influence. All 6 must be considered in analyzing human behavior:
1. Random Behavior
The most primitive neural organization is one that provides random behavior of the organism. The advantage
gained in its development was that as the organism multiplies it tends to deplete local food supplies. Random
movement allows the individual organism a better opportunity for finding food than by remaining in one
location. Random movement later provided some protection from predation. This feature joins with later neural
developments in man and is the default (untrained) system for best-fit behavior search when under emotional
stress, often leading to confusion (and random behavior).
2. Sensor Driven Behavior

An early neural development is the sensor driven behavior. Some single-cell animals which depend on light for
photo-synthesis have developed swimming motor devices which are directly driven by sensors toward light. In
its simplest form the sensor element does not distinguish form. This neural method is in use in man where it is
called reflex action. The jump from a loud sound, the blink of an eye from any nearby movement, the jerk of the
hand away from something hot, are all examples of sensor driven movement. In the case of man, however, due to
other neural developments, the sensor driven behavior may be modified by training and, in most cases, may be
consciously controlled.
3. Neural Pattern Driven Behavior

The most primitive cognitive neural function is neural pattern driven behavior. A development by evolution from
sensor driven behavior, the sensor developed the ability to distinguish form and a form pattern was genetically
provided against which sensed forms may be judged. Behavior then resulted from the degree of match between
the form sensed and that in biologically provided fixed memory. The sensed form, the fixed form, the
comparison mechanism, and the behavior judging mechanism were developed in parallel. This system may
become quite complex.
Comment - Well known among veterinarians is the ability of a young first-time dog
mother that has no prior experience and has never witnessed birth to nevertheless
perform the complex process of stripping the sac from each pup as soon as it is born,
jerking the umbilical cord to clear its breathing tract and start the pup breathing, then
severing the cord, cleaning the pup, and nudging it into position for feeding. This entire
process is performed from genetically supplied memory.
This development also marked the beginning of neural symbol formation and
manipulation. In mammals, for example, the current pattern being seen is complete, a
spatial mapping of the viewed area in the occipital lobes; but it is not used in that way
in the neural processing of that data. It, instead, is time-smoothed and analyzed into a
collection of vectors with special emphasis on movement in the field of view. The
resultant symbol set is the needed information in a vastly condensed form. The
genetically provided pattern is provided in this condensed format. The comparison of
Human Psychology
these two symbol sets, one representing current visual input, the other the provided
pattern, produces an error signal proportional to the amount of mismatch. That final
signal then is used to drive the behavioral motor(s).
4. Memory Pattern Driven Behavior

The first adaptive cognitive neural function to be developed by evolution was the memory pattern driven
behavior. A new feature was added to the neural pattern driven behavior, a memory pattern representing prior
experience was retained long enough to allow comparison with a currently sensed pattern. This mechanism was a
development from the need to determine the motion of the object of interest and first existed as simply the
comparison of one scene with the next in order to not only identify the object but to determine its relative
movement. By adapting to longer term memory, current patterns and/or genetically supplied patterns could be
compared and decisions made (comparison error signals). At this cognitive level, current sensory information is
converted to symbolic form, compared with both long and short memory and with genetic memory. The
mechanism is still a reactive one, since the motor is driven by summed error signals.
5. Imagined Pattern Driven Behavior

The next step was the big one in cognitive development, the ability to modify memory patterns for evaluation.
The predator sees his prey enter cover, develops several possible scenes depicting the prey's exit, selects the most
likely and acts. Experience provides the most likely scene to occur. The predator, in effect, looks into the future
based on current conditions and prior experience. The prey, possessing the same ability, looks back at the
predator, knows his dangers and his limitations, and selects the most likely path to escape.
In its elemental form, this process is very fast. It simulates intelligence. It is not. It is a highly developed form of
reaction. The mechanisms described are not entities. Each evolved over the other in every sensory and motor area
in the brain and consists of tens of thousands of individual neural circuits. All are extensively interconnected and
operate simultaneously in parallel.
All of the behavioral drives described above are used simultaneously, weighted, and combined instinctively
(summed in parallel by genetically determined neural mechanisms). We call the collective effect of these
mechanisms 'intuition' and it is highly satisfactory in behavioral situations where prior training may be applied
(supplying knowledge in depth). These mechanisms constitute the backbone of man's 'intelligence' and supply
high speed intellectual decisions for day to day living with a high degree of accuracy. The brain is a highly
effective tool for controlling an automobile or hunting leopards.
Unfortunately, since it was developed for immediate behavior, and is sufficiently fast to allow re-evaluation and
correction while the behavior is in progress, this collective mechanism lacks the necessary precision for many
very important applications, especially if the decisions have far-reaching or widespread consequences, or extend
into the future for any appreciable period of time. It is also unable to comprehend more than a few parameters
without conscious aid.
6. Conscious Behavioral Selection and Planning

The need for a complex and adaptable culture caused the evolutionary selection process to develop neural
Human Psychology
mechanisms which provide a procedure for sequential intuitive evaluation for the determination of proper
behavior. We call this process 'consciousness'. Present to a lessor degree in all of the higher animals, it has,
arguably, peaked in man. Without immediate need for behavior, the animal consciously considers several
possible scenarios. These may then be executed immediately or stored in memory for later usage. From this
process came the procedure we call 'planning'. The instinctive portion of man is modified by this process in order
to establish behavior more closely tailored to the needs of the particular occasion than can be provided by
intuition alone. What would have been a particular action by intuition is modified after conscious consideration
of its effects. The control of instinct through conscious deliberation, enhancing some, curtailing others, is called
'self-discipline' and is a distinguishing behavioral feature of the human.
Although much slower than intuition, this conscious effort produces far more accurate behavioral decisions. This
process, a conscious sequencing of the intuitive (reactive, instinctive) mind with varying parameters followed by
best-fit selection, is commonly referred to as reasoning. This process is erroneously called 'intelligent'. It is not.
Intelligence requires far more than reasoning, although reasoning is certainly essential.
Unfortunately, human consciousness developed during a long period (4 million years) of living in small groups
(tribes) under severe environmental stress. Both conditions are changed drastically in modern times, tribes
became huge and the inventiveness of the human resulted in much lower evolutionary environmental stress. The
result is a severe misfit between instinct and environment. In ancient times, survival required the utmost from
each individual in the tribe. Most behavior was the the result of immediate need. Communications between
individuals consisted of passing information which was largely timely and urgent. The human instinct developed
to believe, to accept that information, and to act on it. The human is instinctively trusting and naive. He will tend
to believe anything he is taught. Larger groups brought power and control problems. Truth was not as important
as maintaining control. Religions were the answer then, ideology, politics, and intellectual elitism is the answer
now. Sophistry now holds sway even in our courts of justice. Harmony among people was sought by most of the
old religious dogmas, total control of thought and behavior is sought by the new religion (intellectual elitist
dogma).
TOP
TRAINING AND EDUCATION

The human receives all knowledge through his senses. The senses are a portion of the neural system. This
information is processed through his neural mechanisms. His interpretation of each bit of knowledge received is
contingent on his summation of prior knowledge and its bit by bit interpretation. His immediate behavior is the
result of this process.
The motor system in the human body is composed of genetically specified, neurally controlled motors (muscles).
These devices may be improved in strength and speed through exercise (repetition). Repetition of muscle
movement results in physical change in the muscles. The muscles enlarge and become quicker in response.
Human Psychology
Muscles will become weaker and slower in response if not exercised.

The neural system in the human body is composed of genetically specified sensor and motor control elements.
Distributed in these control elements are neural circuits which provide sensor analysis, knowledge processing
and memory. These devices may be improved in strength and speed through exercise (repetition). Repetition of a
neural function results in physical change in the neural circuitry. The neural circuits enlarge and become quicker
in response. Neural circuitry will shrink if allowed to, or trained to, become dormant.
Comment - This does not contradict data showing that IQ, as presently tested, as being
relatively constant throughout the individual's life, regardless of education acquired. If
the same test is given repetitively, however, the individual will become faster and more
accurate with each taking of that test. That increase in performance would not be due
to an increase in IQ, but is the result of the training (exercise, repetition).
The basic (intuitive) human mental mechanism is genetically specified. Each neural function (instinct or decision
mechanism) may be strengthened through exercise (repetition). If a neural function is denied exercise, it will, to a
degree, atrophy. A neural function may no more be changed in function than one can demand that the biceps
wiggle the right big toe, but its ability to effect behavior may be modified through exercise or the lack thereof.
Comment - This is why a child can not be taught not to have racial prejudice. Racial
prejudice is an instinct dating from man's hunter-warrior tribal days. It is fixed wired.
Such 'education' probably intensifies the instinct, since it exercises it. The proper way
to minimize racial prejudice is to teach the child that it is understandable but wrong,
and why. Then enforce a cultural rule that strictly forbids it in any cultural interaction.
The instinct will then atrophy through disuse.
Since the reasoning neural functions are genetically fixed, the only behavior modifications that may be made
externally is through: education, supplying the individual with knowledge on which his reasoning functions may
depend, and through enforced cultural rules. Since the variations in the human behavioral instincts are diverse,
and becoming more so daily, the restrictions of societal living appear quite severe to many and will to even a
higher percentage with time.
Within genetically specified limits, the human body strength and agility are a function of usage (exercise,
repetition). Mistreat the human body with poor food and poor care and no amount of exercise will be of benefit.
Within genetically specified limits, the human mental strength and agility are a function of usage (exercise,
repetition). Mistreat the human mind with fiction, dogma, sophistry, ideology, spirituality, and all other forms of
baseless 'knowledge' and no amount of intellectual exercise will provide optimum behavior.
Human Psychology
Comment - The primitive modern man in Australia, Borneo or South America has the
same sensor and neural system as we, therefore, age for age he has absorbed the same
amount of 'knowledge'. Some of this information in both cases is factual, and therefore
useful. We call our real knowledge 'science' and most of it is factual. We, therefore,
behave in a manner which makes greater use of the assets of the real world for our
benefit. Most of his 'knowledge' is long term accumulations of conversational dogma.
We call his dogma superstition and nonsense. Most of our 'knowledge' is long term
accumulations of textual dogma, both written and oral. We call our dogma philosophy,
religion, ideology, literature, intellectual elitism, political correctness, law,
postmodernism, journalism, and psychology. It , therefore, should also be called
superstition and nonsense.
Think what would happen if we quit teaching and using that modern nonsense and
turned our effort to learning more, a lot more, real knowledge.
A mechanism exists in the human brain which coordinates the commands from the central neural system to the
motor systems. It is trained through the repetition of a given movement command. Once trained it becomes a part
of the intuitive reaction system.
A mechanism exists in the human brain which coordinates the flow of information processing in the central
neural system. It is trained through the repetition of a desired process. Once trained, the new process becomes a
part of the intuitive reaction system and no longer requires conscious management.
TOP
NEURAL MECHANISM VARIATION

On dispelling the myth of the equality of man.
The basis for socialism (the major ingredient in the ideology of the intellectual elite) is that the individuals within
the species are equal and therefore should reap identical rewards regardless of the individual's production for the
community. It assumes that if man is given a uniform culture and the education to support it, all will have
identical culturally responsible behavior. Modern psychology supports this philosophy. This is a gross error.
There is wide variation in human physical appearance. Alternative alleles offer endless combinations of skin
color and texture, height weight, hair and eye color, musculature, etc. In a like manner, for the same reason and
to the same degree, there are wide variations in neural structure. Instinctive parental love, for example, ranges
from complete devotion to shocking cruelty, even murder. Reasoning ability ranges from the imbecile to the
genius. Sociability ranges from the serial murderer to the political charmer. This variation (diversity) is
increasing due to the interference by man in the evolution process. For more on this see The Degeneration of Man
Human Psychology
All variations in individual behavior are to be expected, and for that reason must be allowed for in the cultural
rule set. Any behavior by the individual that is detrimental to the survival of the community (and the species) is
not acceptable to the community. Since the survivability of a species is determined by the survivability of the
individuals within that species, then behavior detrimental to the survival of the individual is also not acceptable.
In the interest of a peaceful and just society, other behavioral rules may also be imposed. Cultural rules may
become quite restrictive of individual behavior since they may be adverse to the normal social drives of all. To
the extent that these rules contribute to the survival of the species (and the individual), they meet the
requirements for behavioral acceptability, and should be enforced. Any societal rule which has no detractor, or
which is otherwise not enforced, are null rules and should be eliminated.
When considering the wide variation in behavioral drives, the behavior of the individual must be a matter of
training, not therapy or education. The rules should be listed and strictly enforced. Training is composed of
repetition (exercise), reward, and punishment. Those individuals with behavior drives near the center of the bell
curve, as they acquire factual knowledge, will find that proper behavior becomes more and more intuitive, no
longer requiring enforcement, reward or punishment. Since many others will still rebel, even though knowing
better, the cultural rules must still be strictly enforced. Since these are knowledgeable rebels, further education
will not be effective and only punishment can control their action.
There are no two identical individuals and the variation is wide. Since cultural rules must fit the needs of the
community, then all must follow the same rules, whether the rules 'fit' the individual or not.
TOP
IS THE HUMAN INTELLIGENT?

Man has studied the evolutionary process by which he was formed, and has found it to be primitive,
unpredictable and brutal, without intelligence, planning or goal. Both his physical and mental structures are
poorly engineered, suffering frequent malfunction, poor and erratic performance and early wear out. Man has
learned through experience that no functional apparatus is satisfactory which has not been deliberately designed
for its intended function. The more complex the apparatus and its function, the more needed is the engineering.
As man progresses into the study of the genetics of man and the process by which man was formed, it becomes
more and more apparent that man, far from being a wondrous creature, is a makeshift creature at best, one which
is now archaic and a misfit in a world suddenly crowded and technically complex. The wonder is that he is able
to function at all. So man will study and tinker as knowledge is gained, then he will begin to make serious
changes. It is now certain, if he survives long enough, that man will engineer his own replacement, and
eventually the entire life system.
The human is quite proud, and justifiably so, of his technological accomplishments. He looks at the chimp, his
Human Psychology
nearest relative, and finds him dim-witted and with deplorable social habits. All other animals fall even farther
behind. Man then becomes arrogant as he surveys the difference between himself and all others. This is an
arrogance that is not justified. Man is intelligent only when compared with the others. As a matter of fact he is
quite error prone, and self delusional.
The human neural system began its development when the first hominid appeared (the ape that walked). That
was about 4 million years ago. His instinctive neural system at that time was quite similar to all of the other more
advanced animals of that time. During the next 2 million years, the hominid developed as a herd herbivore.
Almost all of the tribal social instincts were developed during this period. With the invention of tools and fire,
about 2 million years ago, the human shifted from the herd herbivore to the hunter/gatherer tribe form of social
structure. It was successful. The population began growing. Competition developed between tribes for territory.
Relationship between tribes became militant. The hunter/warrior tribal system began forming.
The neural system of modern man is honed for the hunter/warrior mode of living. The need was for fast decisions
while under stress. Speed was more important than accuracy. Survival depended on it. The human neural system
is primarily a parallel mode reactive decision system, one ideal for controlling an automobile, hunting tigers, or
designing a trap for the tribesman next door.
The conscious thought system makes iterative use of the same mechanism. It was designed for relationships
within the tribe and waging a defensive posture against territorial encroachment. The human mind was not
developed for tribes with memberships in the millions, for urban (ant hill) living, for mixing of cultures, for
being ruled by strangers of another tribe, for high-technology living, etc.
The truth of the matter is that the function of the human brain, the mechanism which accepts and processes
knowledge received through the senses, then provides behavior appropriate to the situation, is determined by a
genome formed by chaos squeezed through a mindless random variable filter. Evolution is a process which is
unplanned and without goals or standards. As is to be expected with any complex mechanism which was built
with no engineering, our genome is a pile of junk. Worse still, man, having eliminated the filter portion of the
evolution mechanism, is now subject to the accumulation of all mutations not immediately fatal. Since the neural
system is more complex than the balance of the body, it receives a major share of these mutations. Not only is
the thinking apparatus fixed by a genetic code designed by an idiot, that code is now wandering all over the map,
and deteriorating all the while.
In the lottery of being born with a genome of a particular configuration, the individual human may be an
imbecile or a genius, or anywhere in between. Since the reasoning apparatus is a fixed mechanism, its change in
capability with experience is quite small. Only the behavior of the individual changes, in response to the quality
and quantity of the knowledge absorbed as processed by the fixed intellectual quality of the individual.
The intelligence of man, therefore, is very questionable. One only needs to read the front page of a newspaper a
few days to understand that. It only appears wonderful to us because there is nothing better around. Instead of
boasting about superiority, man should be humble and careful, knowing that his every thought is suspect.
Since formal education began, thousands of years ago, it has been a doctrine among the intellectual elite that
human thought can create knowledge. Starting with conjecture as a basis, our academia has diligently added tons
of dogma to man's knowledge base each year, and the rate is increasing rapidly. Quoting each other, based on
academic achievement of the expounder rather than proof of the idea expounded, every unsubstantiated thought
Human Psychology
is then expanded and communicated.
TOP
MALE FEMALE INTERCHANGEABILITY

Modern psychology, in keeping with the ideology of the intellectual elite, expresses the belief that man and
woman are interchangeable. They advocate that the individual is the primary element of human culture.
There is considerable genetic difference between the human male and female. Both carry two sets of
chromosomes in each cell of their bodies. One chromosome in one of the two sets in the male genome differs
considerably from that in the female. Male features, the differences from the female which make the male
unique, are contained in the Y chromosome and those features are handed down from father to son. No such
uniquely female features exist in the human nuclear DNA.
There is a genetic divergence between the male and female human. The divergence is as great as that between
some closely related species. This divergence developed over an extremely long time, perhaps a hundred times
the period required for the human to develop from the first ape that walked. A difference in genetic code always
indicates a difference in form and function. The human neural system is far more complex than the human
physical structure. It is unreasonable to believe that this genetic difference exists only in external form and size.
Although there may be many points of similarity, the role of the male is different from that of the female.
Dimorphism in a species, only one of the results of the differing male and female genomes, indicates a differing
role in the male and female. One needs only to consider the 4 million year history of man and study modern
primitive tribes to understand that the primary role of the male has been defense of the family and provision of
the physical needs of the family, while the primary role of the female has been to bear and care for the children in
the family.
The human child requires many years of family nurture in its development. The bonded pair as parents is the
traditional human way to gain this stable development period. The traditional basic element of human culture
is, therefore, the bonded pair, not the individual. Not so, say modern psychologists, the state is the ultimate
parent. It, therefore, has the final responsibility, thus relieving the need for a two-parent system and allowing the
individual to be the basic element of society.
This creates great stress in the human, since it is contradictory to the instincts. The feminization of the male and
the masculinization of the female is a sure sign of the degeneration of the human, in both physical appearance
and instinct.
Human Psychology
TOP
WASTED BRAIN POWER

Although driven by his instincts, the action taken by (behavior of) any animal is always a result of reasoning
(problem analysis and decision making). Even the most elemental animal chooses between alternatives. Fight or
flight is such a basic decision, often deciding the fate of the animal. The male wolf lusts for the mate of the
leader, leading to the choice of sex followed by a sound thrashing or abstinence. The experienced hunting dog,
reaching the fork in the trail where his two preys went separate ways, will strike out across the middle away from
both trails, knowing full well they will come back together. Alternative reasoned decisions are not unique to
man. Only the scope and complexity is different. Even that is not as wide a difference as man in his arrogance
would lead you to believe.
The ability to reason existed in our ancestors long before the development of the modern brain. The
modern brain developed increased memory, adding extensive symbolic storage and communicating ability. More
complex problems could now be visualized, analyzed and then solved. Scenarios could be symbolically created
in the mind and analyzed for proper action. Larger and more complex procedures could be developed and
retained. Man no longer needed to rely on direct experience to learn, he could now store knowledge from others
for possible future needs. The reasoning mechanism, tested through millions of years, remained the same. It was
there long before this additional memory developed. It still reasons as it did in ancient times, considering one
factor at a time. It is a little slower in man than most other animals in some ways, especially when the algorithm
is new or complicated.
Evolution is not a planned process. It is a random process, one that produces both good and bad. Man, as he
exists today, was never planned to be thus. Mutations occur randomly, and are accepted into the gene pool as
permanent residents if they improve the creature's ability to survive long enough to see his grandchildren. Man is
composed of a set of such mutations which have survived the environment to this day. Other surviving creatures
are composed of a different set which also survived. The fact of survival does not even hint at perfection, in any
characteristic.
In the case of the bird, for example, there is no perfect wing. Different wings fit different environmental
conditions, but even within a given environmental niche, no wing is perfect. Mutations do not seek perfection in
the wing, they provide random variations in the wing. The environment kills the recipients of variations which do
not fit. Those which live are not perfect, they only survived. Perhaps, in the long run, the very idea of a wing is
foolishness. We only know that so far it has survived, if teamed up with the proper set of other mechanical
characteristics (a perfect swallow wing would be a failure if attached to a fish).
The same observations and logic apply to the human brain.
Symbolic storage and reasoning were not the intent of evolution when changes were made to the brain. Evolution
has no intent. Certain random changes in the brain resulted in better survivability, for whatever reason. Man is
under an entirely different environment now. Those same characteristics which helped in his survival then may
Human Psychology
be deadly now. Time will tell.

On the other hand, it is very unlikely that these new features and additions were utilized to their fullest by the
ancients. Handing this brain to a primitive who had no concept of its function or proper operation may have still
helped in its survival, but most of its potential was not realized, and is not to this day.
Perhaps that is why the brain grew so large and became so capable, far larger than needed by the ancients,
perhaps larger than we can make proper use of even today. Each time it grew, the ancient made use of, perhaps, a
few percent of the change, but even that usage improved survivability. What did he do with the balance? He
probably did the same thing with it that the bureaucrats, psychologists, politicians, psychiatrists, educators,
academics and social engineers of today do, sit around dreaming up a bunch of mental garbage to fill the new
space. The same imagination that can be used to make up a working snare to catch the evening meal, can also be
used in useless musing building huge castles in the air. The ratio between the two would depend a great deal on
how hungry the thinker was at the time. Times were tough then, obtaining food prevailed. Things are different
now.
There is little chance that we will overtax the brain through education and requiring the individual to make use of
it in a way meaningful to himself and the community. There is a big chance that if we do not maintain a good
flow of information (real knowledge, not dogma) through each individual's brain, and insure that he has the basis
and tools for meaningful decisions, that his decisions will be in error and thereby harmful to the individual and
his community.
Every individual is capable of far more than we know. We must encourage everyone to establish idealistic and
lofty goals early in life.
TOP
WHAT DOES THE HUMAN SEEK?

A culture is the summation of the individual behaviors within a given group. All species have cultures. Each has
a specific pattern of behavior. These patterns were designed through trial and error to enhance species survival.
Most species of animals have cultures which are largely instinctive. The behavioral inclinations (instincts) of the
individual are the driving force behind all cultural behavior. Such was ramidus, our ancestor, the walking ape.
The more intellectual the species, the more complex the culture and the more behavior (culture) will vary from
group to group.
All individual cultural decisions are colored by the individual's particular set of instincts, and no two people are
alike. Each tries to optimize his social choices to gain the most personal benefit (satisfaction of his set of
instincts). Even parental love, probably the most unselfish instinct, requires some reciprocity. It is difficult to
love a child who gives only hate in return. Helping a stranger, only to have him spit in return, turns generosity (a
Human Psychology
very strong instinct) into fury (an even stronger instinct). Most cultural decisions made by man and believed by
him to be objective, are not. They are his sly instincts leading him to the decision.
All individual animals, including man, seek what they perceive as their essentials of life.
They do not seek the effort, pain, self-sacrifice, self-discipline and problems they must endure in order to obtain
these essentials, they seek these essentials themselves. Many will endure, for the most part, in order to reach
their goals, but they will not deliberately take a more difficult course than is absolutely necessary.
This is why any animal, including man, will accept charity, even if the resulting life is worse as a result. Feed
any wild animal, one perfectly capable of doing well on his own, and it becomes enslaved. Cut the charity
gradually with time and the animal will suffer to the edge of starvation before cutting the ties in desperation.
Proper charity feeds the cripple, sick and old, not the able. Charity is a disservice to the capable.
This characteristic has resulted in a peculiarity in human communication. What man says he likes, is not what he
usually will do if given the opportunity. Man never did like contradicting his instincts. Since the beginning, he
has usually done all the things he was supposed to do, and stayed away from the things he shouldn't do, but it
was always reluctantly. Man is a competitive animal, the very best that evolution devised, and his goal has
always been to win (survive). He complains continually about what he is doing, and dreams of the pot of gold at
the end of the rainbow. Ask any one of them, from ramidus to modern man, what he really would like, and the
answer would be about the same: "Give me a beach, let the booze flow, plenty of sex, and no responsibilities. It
would be heaven not to worry about struggling to make a living, trying to please a spouse or boss, paying all
those taxes and worrying about my old age." In the case of ramidus, it would be lions instead of taxes, and none
of them ever got old.
Such a dream is enticing. Most humans, if given the opportunity, would never budge off that beach. In fact, most
would settle for less than a beach and also agree to cheap booze. There are many, however, who would get bored
after a couple of weeks and start looking around for a mountain to climb. These latter ones are the builders and
producers, if allowed. If not culturally allowed for and guided they will tend to plunder that same culture.
Socialism is the mortal enemy of any constructive and meaningful society, since it promises the beach, booze
and sex to everyone. It lies when it does so, since socialism is self-bankrupting. When socialism is on the verge
of collapse, communism then solves the problem through dictatorship. Then its back to work, even harder, and
with lower return. This time with a gun at the head.
The evolution of man is an undeniable picture of a creature evolved to withstand great hardship. His very
survival over a 4 million year development period depended on his ability to intellectually control his instincts
and struggle with all his might. Even if Utopia should be achievable, man would become lazy and fat, his
evolution would enter a degenerative nose-dive, his productivity would approach zero and he would become
insatiable in his desires for pleasure. What man seeks is what he wants, and is not at all what he needs.
Modern psychology encourages the weaknesses in man. Fees are fatter if the advice is to avoid stress, take it
easy, go to ball games, take this 'getaway from it all' pill, take a lot of vacations, enjoy a lot of sex, and in general
promote the idea of 'thank God its Friday'. This advice fits what man wants. This coddling and pampering is the
exact opposite of what man needs. He needs a dutch uncle not a doting aunt. The advice he should be receiving
is: 'get involved in life', stress is a natural part of living, avoid frivolous pursuits, establish lofty goals then try
Human Psychology
your best to meet them, etc..

Take away the struggle, that which created man, and the result is a worthless, and often destructive, bum. He
becomes no more than a garbage can in which to toss assets better utilized elsewhere. Subsidize any animal, and
the same thing happens. So we have this very human paradox. Man struggles to satisfy his instincts, but he must
control them if he is to contribute to his society (a struggle formerly required to survive) and his own health and
well being. He is at his most noble when under stress. Contrary to psychological dogma, stress is a natural
condition for man. It has been a part of his life since the beginning.
Man struggles for utopia, the worst possible thing he can have. He finds his life in the struggle, that which
he strives to avoid.
TOP
OBSOLETE INSTINCTS
The intellectual additions to the instincts of our species are the result of evolution. The development of these
intellectual additions provides a variability in behavior through intellectual control of the instincts. This
variability enhances survival. Since this new memory is capable of not only storing past experience, but of
procedures as well, even imaginative alternative actions can be evaluated. A particular behavior may then be
patterned to optimize the action taken. In some cases, the intellect may even forbid the execution of a particular
instinctive drive. It is this necessary intellectual control of the instincts which makes a culture successful. This
intellectual control is a learned function and is called self-discipline. An intellectual animal is one that uses
intellectual control (self-discipline) to over-ride less desirable instinctive behavior.
All social instincts, from mother love to tribal cooperation, are diverging rapidly and are degenerating at a rapid
rate. Random mutations spare no instinct and nature is no longer allowed to cleanse the gene pool. Many of
man's instincts became obsolete and counter-productive when his social environment changed. Others have since
become damaging to society as the result of degeneration. There is little that we can do at the present time to
correct the source of these problems, but we can identify them and start working toward minimizing their effect.
Unfortunately, modern psychology, which is far more concerned with making people feel good than with
establishing a basis for a best-fit society for man, embraces many of the troublesome areas in instincts and
actually encourages an intensification. One of the sacred cows of psychology is sex.
In the case of the traditional family over the last 4 million years, the sex drive was shaped and controlled by
custom (culture) to insure the family unit, even now considered the most reliable way to raise children. The
female controlled sexual activity and used it as a tool to bond the male to her and her family. From him she
acquired protection and food gathering, especially needed during pregnancy and while caring for the very young.
Human Psychology
In pursuing its ideology, modern intellectual elitism uses psychology as a means of authority to teach the pursuit
of sex as the end product. One might say that the human species is being taught to be groin driven.
The unrestrained human, to put it mildly, is sexually bizarre. The physical sex that nature developed in the
human, heterosexual penis-vagina sex, is lost in the wilderness. Modern heterosexual couples regularly engage in
penis-oral and oral-vaginal sex, often at the same time. Then there is penis-anal, and even oral-anal sex.
Masturbation is common. A mixture of masturbation and one of the other forms of sex is also common. Although
some of the other animals sniff around and play various sexual arousal games, none use any of the other practices
as a substitute for penis-vagina sex. Most men claim to prefer penis-oral sex, a practice that has nothing to do at
all with procreation. Rare would be the stallion that mounted the wrong end of the mare.
It doesn't end there. About 10% of the human population is homosexual and bisexual. Describing the antics of
this group would take a couple of pages. The infamous bath houses, sex clubs and sadomasochist dungeons of
San Francisco house unbelievable permutations and combinations of every possible sex act.
Then there are the child molesters, rapists, and murder-rapists. A large portion of homosexual men prefer very
young boys, even babies. Worse yet is the serial killer who obtains sexual pleasure from murder.
Placing a bunch of same-sex animals of the same species in the same pen will bring a variety of responses. If
they are male and territorial, they will usually fight. If not, such as most grazing animals, they will mill around
but get along. Once in a while, a male will raise up on another in mock sexual activity, but it's quickly
terminated. Pen up a bunch of same-sex humans and the sexual activity will hardly slow. A South African male
prison recently started issuing free condoms to all of its inmates in an attempt to slow down the spread of HIV.
Any old hole in a storm as the old saying goes.
Then from a social standpoint, three or more in a bed is the latest teen-age rage and sexual promiscuity of
married couples with children is on the rise.
In the animal kingdom (some primates excepted), sex for any other reason than procreation is rare. Sex for that
reason among humans is rare.
If man has value above the other animals (or plain dirt for that matter), it lies not in his groin but in his brain. If
the groin is to prevail, there is no need for a culture of any sort. Eat, drink and make Mary for tomorrow we
become extinct. Time was it took brain power for a man to succeed well enough to satisfy his groin. Modern
sexual freedom has removed that requirement. Many men don't strive anymore, either. One of his biggest goals
was suddenly made free and easy. Where wooing was the game, it is now self defense.
What are the repercussions of promiscuity? Read any newspaper. Divorce rates are sky-rocketing. Courts are
filled with cases arguing over child responsibility. Most child abuse cases involve step-parents or live-in lovers.
Child murder and abandonment are no longer rare occurrences. Most family murders are the result of sexual
promiscuity.
Sex is not hygienic. It would be hard to imagine any activity so adept at the transport of disease from one person
to another. Bodily fluids are freely exchanged with activity that rubs the skin and membranes thin. It would also
be difficult to find any disease that could not be transferred in this manner.
Human Psychology
But the major loss to humanity is the time spent in pursuing and performing sex. With almost everything the
human does, the eventual goal is almost always sex. Huge industries such as cosmetics, clothing, jewelry,
cruises, and hotels provide direct services for the sex trade. Luxury items such as expensive automobiles, condos
on the beach, lavish restaurants are used by many to promote their sexual activity. Aphrodisiacs (Viagra is a huge
success in the drug field) are big business in much of the world, leading in one case to the near extinction of
another species.
Sexual pleasure has been shown to be chemical in nature. Sexual activity increases the chemical flow. Sex is,
therefore, addictive. Modern psychology encourages this addiction.
To put it bluntly, sex as practiced by the modern human, is a useless, costly, troublesome, wasteful, and disease
ridden bestial practice with no redeeming feature. It should be discouraged and minimized. When love became
synonymous with lust, sex became a liability.
TOP
READERS COMMENTS
READER'S COMMENT: Any educated psychologist would laugh at your pitiful and obviously limited
understanding of the profession. Your simpleton viewpoints are incredible.
AUTHOR'S REPLY: Exactly! Dogma saturated groups are extremely sensitive to criticism. Tribal lore must be
protected. The flat earth society still lives, defensively. Creationism is defended by the spiritual, with anger and
moral indignation. Astrologists defend their art. Question any baseless PC precept and receive scorn and anger.
Republicans and Democrats get downright vicious with each other, though their differences in dogma dumped in
the eye would cause no irritation whatsoever. The liberal angrily rejects scientific DNA proof that the fetus is a
human and a separate and distinct human being from the mother. The field of law angrily defends an adversarial
system of law even though it demands that both sides of any dispute seek unfair advantage over the other. The
journalist believes it a moral duty to angrily defend the right to modify the news to fit the tribal (PC) ideology,
truth be damned.
READER'S COMMENT:
You claim that: "Modern psychology is ideological and political as opposed to scientific, and deliberately so.
Further, the ideological basis is not only archaic and outmoded, it was deeply flawed from the beginning." What
asinine statements! They convey no thought! Obviously it is your purpose to inflame!
AUTHOR'S REPLY:
The liberal arts campus elitest ideology (PC) postulates a culture that it feels is the most desirable for the human.
Human Psychology
It assumes certain characteristics for the human, such as: (1) the human is intelligent, (2) the human is adaptable,
(3) the human is naturally benignly social, or may be educated to be so.
All 3 of these are false, as are most of the other postulated features necessary for the ideology. Any study of the
evolution and development of the human will show that: (1) the human is naturally intuitive (reactive,
instinctive) using memory as an element in the behavioral decision. The human can only emulate intelligence
when he consciously and deliberately follows a strictly defined intellectual process, one that he normally does
not follow, (2) the human does not adapt (change in structure, neural or otherwise) to cope with an environmental
problem, he is instead widely capable of coping. He is capable rather than adaptable. This allows the human to
survive under cultures which are not optimum for his survival. Such cultures are not excusable. Only an
intellectual culture, one based on real knowledge, can optimally fit the intellectual human, (3) the human is
naturally sociable but that sociability is instinctive, rigidly structured and highly variable. A part of the human
sociability, as one example among many, is competition. This instinct can lead to violence if such violence is
allowed. It can be controlled through training (enforced edict), but since it is an instinct it can not be educated
(although the human may be educated about it thereby supplying additional memory input to the decision
mechanisms)..
If one should make a list of human characteristics postulated as the basis for the campus elitist ideology, then
should do the same for the characteristics postulated by the current field of psychology, they would be identical.
The campus ideology could not otherwise survive. The question arises: "Are either of these scientific (real
knowledge that may be certified through demonstration or measurement)?" To my knowledge, neither group has
ever even made such a list for use as the basis for their opinions, much less made any effort to prove the
truthfulness of each statement in such a list. On what basis does either believe they know what the true
characteristics of the human are? As far as I can tell, each tribe (one is a tribe within the other) relies totally on
conjecture, imagination, introspection, 'common sense', and hearsay (conjecture, imagination and introspection
by Marx, Freud, Kant, Nietsche, etc.).
Modern psychology is a philosophy rather than a science, one utilizing an ideology as a standard. The basis for
this philosophy predates modern real knowledge and is counter to that knowledge. It is based on questionable
premises. It is archaic. Those who defend this obsolete 'science' are reactionary.
READER'S COMMENT:
You say: "Rather than acting as a conduit of knowledge to bring man's social world into the modern age,
psychology now acts as a barrier instead, substituting 'fact' of its own and insisting that it be accepted as truth."
What about all of the scientifically based studies in psychology? What about those now studying the relationship
between genetics, evolution and psychology? Are you saying this is all dogma and ideological?
AUTHOR'S REPLY:
Exactly!
No study can be more accurate than the premises used in its design. If those premises are guesswork, the data
from the study is no better, no matter how extensive the data is, how accurately the data was taken, or how
brilliantly it was analyzed. As a vastly simplified analogy, consider the case of the engineer who is handed the
task of analyzing a particular automobile which he believes to be a sports racing car but which is actually a
Human Psychology
pickup truck. He sets about testing the acceleration, lateral tracking, front/rear weight balance, roll stiffness, high
speed braking, and the reliability of the engine under maximum power. Although all of these factors may be
measured well on a pickup truck, none of them particularly fit. His tests may be well designed, valid, accurate
and thorough, but his analysis, no matter how intelligent, will not truly describe the capability of the pickup
truck. The truck was designed to reliably carry loads in an adverse environment, at far less than racing speeds.
Evolution is a senseless process, one without goal or purpose. It did not set out to develop a highly sociable,
intelligent and god-like creative creature. The process is mercilessly reactive, it merely kills anything that lacks
the ability to survive. The human is a wonderfully tough and capable pickup truck, an instinctive, tenacious,
opportunistic, work-horse with a capable memory that is greatly utilized. It is the result of millions of years of
brutal adaptation, one requiring the death and suffering of millions of individuals.
Yes, there are groups of psychologists who are now studying the effects of genetics. Some are studying the
development of the human, seeking social factors which effect its behavior. Some are even studying the social
habits of our close animal relatives, for possible application. Almost without exception, though, they are all
working on the sports racing car theory, trying to see why this pickup truck fails to handle or brake well and is so
terribly slow.
Human behavior is not just effected by genetics and the evolutionary development of the human - it is entirely
the product of those two factors. Yes, a particular individual behavior can be modified by edict and education,
but even that ability to be modified is a function of the genetics of the individual and the developmental history
of the species. It is all genetics - and the current genetic structure was determined by the evolutionary history
peculiar to the human.
The IQ of an individual, even with all its arguments, is a basic element in human behavior. An example of the
direct relationship between the genetic configuration of an individual human and its behavior, a tiny sliver from
the tip of an iceberg soon to be explored in its entirety, appeared in 'Scientific American', Jan 1998, p30:
Smart Gene
Robert Plomin of the Institute of Psychiatry in London reports that he has isolated the first specific gene
for human intelligence. Plomin took blood samples from gifted children at a special summer school at
Iowa State University and from a control group of students having average intelligence. He found that
all of the children with extremely high IQs also showed a high occurrence of the IGF2R gene, located
on chromosome 6, in their DNA.
TOP
Pandora
Psychology, Evolution and Pandora

This text was submitted to an internet academic forum on behavior. It is immediately followed by a reply to this
text on the same forum. These two texts are presented as originally submitted and are therefore not as formal as
actual essays written on the subject might have been.
Many years ago I was an engineer working with airborne combat computers. These were constructed from
vacuum tubes, therefore terribly unreliable, and based on analog techniques and therefore as inaccurate But it
was the leading edge in technology at the time and they were quite effective. I had spent years learning the
intricacies of the components we used and the circuitries that forced these recalcitrant parts to behave. It was at
Hughes and we were known all over the world for our technical proficiency.
Then we began to hear rumors about digital computers, and other rumors about a little gadget called a transistor.
It was all very interesting, but hardly practical. Digital computation would require millions of active devices, we
were working with hundreds and almost overwhelmed with that. Transistors were terribly non-linear and quite
prone to thermal blowout. Besides, what we had was working quite well. And surely, we told ourselves, we
could work this new stuff in with the old. It would be an easy transition.
The path became clearer every day. These were the coming things. The change might not be so leisurely or easy.
There was a growing demand in both civilian and military sectors for computers that far exceeded the capability
of even the largest vacuum tube mechanisms and requiring accuracy that would have been impossible with them.
The transistors were much smaller than the vacuum tubes, with promise of being made much smaller yet. And
that smallness could allow a practical digital computer of reasonable size. It became time to get on the band
wagon with both feet.
The problem was that the one excluded the other. Vacuum tubes were not electrically compatible with
transistors. Digital methods are not compatible with analog except in input/output devices. Packaging was
entirely different. Even the power supplies were not compatible, and cooling requirements were different.
Essentially none of the prior technology carried over. It was an entirely new ball game. Bookcases full of the
latest MIT publications on active electronic theory became obsolete, to be replaced with a small volume on
boolean algebra and a physics text on semiconductor theory. Then the flow of information began. It seemed so
fast. One day you are a bright and productive engineer. The next you are a fumbling clod, struggling not to look
foolish. The newer engineers coming on line were more resilient. A few of our older ones found the transition too
difficult and turned to selling real estate. The rest of us burned the midnight oil. Thankfully, we found the
engineering thought patterns to be the same and we already had a good grasp of the problems that needed
solution. All we needed to do was cram in the new knowledge, most of it being developed as we studied.
file:///C|/onelifebook/psy/pandora.html (1 of 9)1/25/2007 4:51:09 PM
Pandora
This same process is happening in the field of psychology today. Psychologists have paid lip service to genetics
and evolution for many years, while the evidence mounted to critical mass. It must now be faced. Genetics
describes the human mind as consisting of billions of neural cells. In comparison with the old ideas of discrete
but overlapping behavioral functions, this new approach becomes far more complex. Moving from the idea of the
brain being a knowledge bucket to learning how it developed into its now visible far more complex structure and
function will be a painful one. As with the computer revolution, two new texts have been added to the
psychologist's library, "Molecular Biology of the Cell" by Alberts and "Neurobiology" by Shepherd. The rest of
the library will then slowly and agonizingly follow my old MIT electronic series into the round file, to be
replaced one by one with new texts from an entirely different viewpoint. Unfortunately, in the case of the
psychologist, even the old thought patterns must be retrained. No longer will imagination, conjecture, speculation
and hearsay (other people's imagination, conjecture and speculation) suffice. The emphasis now turns from
philosophy to science.
Pandora's Box Has Been Opened

How can this be? Why can't these new ideas coexist with the old?
The answer is simple: They are directly opposed. The one contradicts the other. This is not the acquisition of an
optional and parallel approach. Genetics and evolution can't be tacked on current knowledge, it underlies all
psychological knowledge with all the authority that only measurable fact can have. It negates all dogma which
disagrees. The situation is one much like the old saw which says that no one can be just a little pregnant.
All modern psychological knowledge is based on three premises:
1. The human is intelligent. He will behave properly with proper education (nurture). Aberrant behavior
indicates trauma, disease, chemical imbalance or poor environment. Proper behavior is judged against the
current academic elitist ideology (or is it that the current ideology was formulated by the psychologist?).
2. The human mind can create knowledge without reference to the outside world. In fact, some believe, true
knowledge is best developed without the taint of the real world. Perfect thought comes from pure minds.
Psychologists have pure minds.
3. Sufficient data about human behavior can provide a basis for determining the cause of that behavior.
Determining cause from effect is a valid logical process.
It is now recognized: that: genetics is a strong factor in the behavior of man; the current genetic configuration of
man is the result of a process called evolution; and the human neural system is a part of that genetic
configuration, therefore subject to the same forces as the physical part of the body. Once the human neural
system is recognized as an evolved neural biological mechanism, none of the above three premises hold true. If
they are not true then all of the knowledge based on those suppositions becomes highly suspect.
The myth of human intelligence

Man has studied the evolutionary process by which he was formed, and has found it to be primitive,
unpredictable and brutal, without intelligence, planning or goal. His physical and mental structures are both
poorly engineered and suffer frequent malfunction, poor and erratic performance and early wear out. As man
progresses into the study of the genetics of man and the process by which man was formed, it becomes more and
Pandora
more apparent that man, far from being a wondrous creature, is a makeshift creature at best, one which is now
archaic and a misfit in a world suddenly crowded and technically complex. The wonder is that he is able to
function as well as he does.
The human is quite proud, and justifiably so, of his technological accomplishments. He looks at the chimp, his
nearest relative, and finds him dim-witted and with deplorable social habits. All other animals fall even farther
behind. Man then becomes arrogant as he surveys the differences between himself and all others. This is an
arrogance that is not justified. Man is intelligent only when compared with the others. Actually, he is quite error
prone and self delusional.
The human neural system began its development when the first hominid appeared (the ape that walked). That
was about 4 million years ago. During the next 2 million years, the early hominid developed as a herd herbivore.
Almost all of the tribal social instincts were developed during that period. With the invention of tools and fire,
about 2 million years ago, the human shifted from the herd herbivore to the hunter/gatherer tribe form of social
structure. It was successful. The population began growing. Competition developed between tribes for territory.
Relationships between tribes became militant. The hunter/warrior tribal system began forming. The neural
system of modern man is honed for the hunter/warrior mode of living. The need was for fast decisions while
under stress. Speed was more important than accuracy. Survival depended on it.
The human neural system is primarily a parallel mode reactive decision mechanism, one ideal for controlling an
automobile, hunting tigers, or designing a trap for the tribesman next door. The conscious thought system makes
iterative use of the same mechanism. It was designed for relationships within the tribe and waging a defensive
posture against territorial encroachment. The human mind was not developed for tribes with memberships in the
millions, for urban (ant hill) living, for mixing of cultures, for being ruled by strangers of another tribe, for hightechnology living, etc.
The truth of the matter is that the function of the human brain, the mechanism which accepts and processes
knowledge received through the senses, then provides behavior appropriate to the situation, is determined by a
genome formed by chaos squeezed through a mindless random variable filter. Evolution is a process which is
unplanned and without goals or standards. As is to be expected with any complex mechanism which was built
with no engineering, our genome is a pile of junk. Worse still, man, having eliminated the filter portion of the
evolution mechanism, is now subject to the accumulation of all mutations not immediately fatal. Since the neural
system is more complex than the balance of the body, it receives a major share of these mutations. Not only is
the thinking apparatus fixed by a genetic code designed by an idiot, that code is now wandering all over the map,
and deteriorating all the while.
In the lottery of being born with a genome of a particular configuration, the individual human may be an
imbecile or a genius, or anywhere in between. Since the reasoning apparatus is a fixed mechanism, its change in
capability with experience is quite small. Only the behavior of the individual changes, in response to the quality
and quantity of the knowledge absorbed as processed by the fixed intellectual quality of the individual. The
intelligence of man, therefore, is very questionable. One only needs to read the front page of a newspaper a few
days to understand that. It only appears wonderful to us because there is nothing better around.
Instead of boasting about his intellectual ability, man should be humble and careful, knowing that his
every thought is suspect.
Pandora
The myth of human intellectual creativity

If the human neural system is a biological mechanism (genetics and evolution prove this is so), then it is shorn of
magic, spirituality and mysticism. It can not create gold from lead, truth from falsehood, or knowledge from
dogma. Any mechanism has a finite capability. No machine can provide more than its fuel. There is always a loss
in every machine, none may even reach 100% efficiency, much less produce more than it is given. The human
brain can no longer be considered creative. It can not create knowledge, it may only discover it. The knowledge
produced by thought must be contained in the premises (input data) on which that thought is based. Knowledge
may be discovered by the human brain only when it has adequate truthful data on which to work. If the input
knowledge (data) is inadequate or untruthful the output conclusions can be disastrous, and often are. Using
unproven premises negates the reasoning that follows by the amount of its error. In the computer world we refer
to this process limitation as "garbage in, garbage out."
Conjecture, imagination, hearsay, and introspection are all useful tools in the formation of new theory. They will
not reliably provide working knowledge, separately or collectively. Theory must be proven before it is applied,
whether the subject is a space shuttle, bridge, or airplane. It is even more important if the subject is human. A
human culture should not be used as experimental fodder.
Can cause be determined from effect?

Any study of primitive tribal knowledge (lore) is a study of cause determined from effect. If, for example, there
should be a partial solar eclipse, it becomes obvious to the village shaman that the fairest village maiden must be
sacrificed. The effect is quite visible. Without knowledge of the actual cause, however, there are a multitude of
possible causes that may be imagined. One of those would be an angry God whose ire may be appeased only
through the death of a lovely young woman.
In the modern engineering world, the source of designs for human service, it has long been known that the loop
must be closed. No idea is useful unless both cause and effect are known (verified, measured), the effect is
desirable and the side effects are known and are a reasonable price to pay. Only when both cause and effect are
known sufficiently well to reliably predict the effect(s) should an idea be used in the service of man. It is
dangerous to do otherwise.
The tribal shaman discovered the cause by noting the magnitude of the event. Obviously, this was an important
occasion, one that only the Gods could control. Modern psychology uses similar logic. It ascertains the cause
of human behavior by analysis of human behavior. And its answers are often no better.
An excellent example is shown by the current controversy in our schools over the proper method for teaching
small children to read. The two procedures in question are "whole language" and "phonics". The problem
provoking the argument is that children are not, on the average, learning to read very well.
The psychologist says that the human learns everything in the same way. The brain is a bucket into which
knowledge is poured, therefore, if a young child learns to speak through immersion in an environment rich in the
spoken language, it will learn to read if immersed in an environment rich in the written language.
The problem is that the two processes (learning to speak and learning to read) are not even remotely equivalent,
Pandora
and that difference lies in the structure of the brain, a structure defined by genetics. The human brain is not a
sponge. It has structure and that structure determines its capability to learn. As a result of that structure, it learns
different things in different ways.
The first hominid, four million years ago, required tribal living for survival. Tribal living requires
communication. Tribal success depends a great deal on communication. Those tribes with the best
communication tended to survive the best. The ability to communicate verbally is instinctive in the human, as it
is in all animals, though to a lesser extent.
Internal thought is composed of electrical and chemical signals. To communicate, these internal thought signals
must be converted into physical movement (behavior). To send a message, those internal thoughts to be
expressed aurally must be converted into a combination of phonemes (aural elements). To receive a message,
those phonemes heard must then be converted into internal thought equivalents. A bidirectional thought/speech
lookup dictionary is required. Evolution developed a specialized area in the brain which mechanizes the learning
of phoneme-to-thought and thought-to-phoneme conversions. It is called the Broca's area and is located in the
male human brain in the left frontal lobe and in the female in both frontal lobes.
Immerse a child in an environment rich in spoken language and it will instinctively learn to verbally
communicate. Careful instruction in proper pronunciation and idea construction augments this natural ability.
Written language is a different thing entirely. From the viewpoint of evolution, a multimillion year process,
written communication is a very recent invention. It is an intellectual skill that has no special neural circuitry to
aid in its acquisition. There is no mechanism in the brain for converting the written word, as seen by the eye, to
thought. A different sense is used. Verbal communication uses the voice and ears. Written communication uses
the hand and eyes. There is, however, a mechanism available for converting the spoken word to thought. So
when we learn to read, we convert the written word to its spoken equivalent and run that through the Broca's area
to obtain the meaning (internal thought equivalent). When we write, we run the thought through the Broca's area
to obtain the phoneme equivalent, recall the visual pattern associated with that phoneme set and then tell the
hand to write that word.
It is a duty of the education system to teach a child the proper pronunciation of his spoken thought elements, for
it is that pronunciation which is cross-referenced to the proper thought. It is sheer idiocy to expect a child to learn
a written word that it does not already know both the meaning and the proper pronunciation.
Does this mean that the child can not learn to read using the whole language concept? Of course not. The human
child is extremely adaptable. One could hang some of these children by the heels and require them to study with
the book held sideways and they would still learn to read. For the maximum benefit to the most, however, the
education process should fit the mechanism instead of requiring the mechanism to adapt to the process.
Does this mean we should cancel whole language and go back to phonics? Not completely. We have not been
teaching phonics properly either, but that's another story. And once a child is proficient with a verbal and written
vocabulary of a particular size and complexity, his immersion into an environment rich in written communication
that does not exceed his ability is indeed quite valuable. The key is that the child must know the
pronunciation and meaning of a word before it is allowed to tackle the written equivalent.
How many of these problems are there? There must be multitudes.
Pandora
In Conclusion
My sympathy for the plight of the psychologist is sincere. I know from experience the devastating experience of
having your life's work suddenly tossed out the window like so much garbage. I write this text on a machine that
is beyond the wildest dreams that I ever had in those early vacuum tube days. I now look at the widespread use of
digital technology in music, business and communications and realize that it was worth all the pain.
A few psychologists will grasp the need and attack the new approach with vigor. Many will avoid basic learning
by reading only the pop authors. Others will try vainly to fit genetics and evolution in with the old premises and
reasoning. Still others will build a protective wall of cute quotations, hiding business as usual. Many will not
make any change, choosing to blunder through. Some, like many of my engineering friends, will turn to real
estate. It will be painful for all.
Worse still, it appears to be a long and arduous transition. Unlike an engineering field which produces a product
directly for public use, a position demanding immediate accountability and responsibility, psychology is a
behind-the-scenes function. It provides the basis for education, politics, journalism and jurisprudence without
ever appearing directly to the public. If psychology errs in education, for example, it is the education system
which bears the brunt of the blame. Complaints from the education system may then be shunted rather than
corrected by claiming complexity, misunderstanding, improper application, etc. Psychology is largely peer
controlled. It need not be right as long as a majority of other psychologists agree. The entire field of psychology
is a mutual admiration society. It is also highly reactionary, staunchly resisting the shift toward becoming a true
science.
Being cushioned from external accountability and responsibility, archaic premises and the resultant generation of
dogma will survive for many years. Fifty years from now there will be psychologists who will claim, "The
human is an intelligent creature, therefore, if healthy, its behavior depends on education and cultural
environment."
There are people even today who claim the earth is flat.
The following is a reply received on the "Evolution, Psychology and Pandora" submission to the Behavior forum.
It is printed here because it contains elements not well explained, some not even covered, in my submission. It
also represents a different viewpoint of the subject and suggests some of the pitfalls that will be encountered in
the pursuit of joining knowledge about evolution and genetics with current behavior knowledge.
The Engineering of Brains

by John Fentress, 3/24/98
I found John Stevenson's comments both insightful and fascinating. We are in a revolution of thought that
Pandora
probably none of us can fully comprehend. Psychology today is not at all what psychology offered yesterday,
and tomorrow's psychology awaits discovery.
Yes indeed! Psychology has long paid lip service to genetics and evolution (and developmental biology). Today
those lips are swollen from years of "mis-speak". [Its neuroscience, not genetics, that describes human mind
through reference to billions of neural cells; genetics asks where these nerve cells come from, within an
evolutionary (but not developmental) context. But that's a comment at the level of squabbles over typos.]
I do not see nerve cells, as currently understood, as saying much about "discrete but overlapping behavioral
functions". Indeed that phrase represents a major current conceptual struggle: how can things/events be BOTH
discrete and overlapping? Its an easy question to throw away. Its answers depend upon the framework employed
in discussion and analysis. It borders on paradox. Its a puzzle. Nerve cells can reveal the mechanisms of the
puzzle, but conceptual (and systems thinking) advances are needed as well. {Crick's ASTONISHING
HYPOTHESIS is a good source here; see also Edelman's NEURAL DARWINISM for a quite different
perspective.) "Moving from the idea of the brain being a knowledge bucket to learning how it developed into its
now visible far more complex structure and function will be a painful one", is right on. See, for example, the
current issue of BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES.
Of course there is the HUGE problem of how we relate levels of order, and co-order. Debates about
"reductionism" VERSUS "holism" can become tedious. Levels of nature may have a dialogue that we simply
don't get. But that's another issue.
I have never seen a psychologist (or anyone else) with a pure mind. I have seen many, from many disciplines,
jump on "blank slate" and, the opposite, "predeterminism" models of minds. Neither works. I have seen many
suffer from the arrogant fallacy of immaculate perception (as in direct pipeline to God, or the gods - your choice.
We do not even understand the relation between instruction and selection as these terms are used in the
biological sciences. We do not understand the bases of embryology. We can only speculate, and argue.
As far as "intelligence" goes, the term has so many definitions that it has none. Spinal cords are "intelligent" by
some definitions; geniuses can be remarkably stupid by other definitions. Intelligence is a term like
consciousness: it means everything, and nothing. Chimps are smarter at being chimps than I can ever be. They
are bloody geniuses (and thus stupid, too). I would not like to have a contest with a Monarch butterfly in a race
from the mid west to Mexico. A salmon can beat me in seeking a given stream from the middle of the ocean
anytime. I can read about the chimp, and Monarch, and salmon, however. I can also admire them, and I do. But I
am a zoologist (and thus allowed to partake in such foolishness).
I don't do this reading about other creatures through a reading gene. I do not attack my neighbor through an
attack gene. I behave on the basis of population codes in my brain that no one understands. So John is right: we
need to shake up our old (linear, single cause) ideas. The question is how to do this. If we knew, we wouldn't
need to argue. Perhaps we do need to argue though, if for no other reason than to make it clear that we do not
understand. Who cares if we are wrong. We are! Goes with the territory. (At least, we are incomplete in our
knowledge; sounds nicer.)
Human mind "mutations" are more than genetic in a functional sense. Sure, gene mutations affect neurons and
neural circuits, and lots of other biological stuff. But if variations in early circuits are modified and selected, then
Pandora
mutation is not a bad metaphor to consider....embryological or performance mutations. I know the dangers of
analogy. I know the dangers of jumping across vast levels: such as genes to brains to minds to........ , and so on.
We all do, I suspect. But selection models are interesting to think about, not only in evolution or immunology,
but also in brain and mind (cf. Edelman). Its all controversial stuff, but fascinating.
To change streams somewhat: Its truly AMAZING that John, and I, and all others who play with this site are
expression phenomena that, for our own lives, began as a single fertilized cell. My genes at age two were what
they are now (except for those pesky mistakes that developmental genetics offers). I don't feel like I am two. So
something must have happened between age two and now. Same genes, different (temporary) product.
Screaming "genes, genes, genes", doesn't in itself answer that. We need more.
But what is "more"? I suspect we can defend our "more" against other "mores" by being eloquent and even
obnoxious. That's good old-fashioned primate behavior: scream the problem away, and smack those who scream
a different tune. But, like John, I think we need different tunes.
One of my favorite past-times (I am a masochist) is to push ideas until they crash against alternative walls. Push
light as a wave until particles seem better, then switch the game. Push continuity until I see discontinuity; push
change until I see stability; push reductionism until I see emergence; push genes until I see an embryo; push the
embryo until I see the adult. Push brains until I see minds until I see behavior until I circle back to evolution yet
again. Each push flips my mind into a somewhat different space, and each new space shows me how imperfect
all of my previous spaces have been. I go out and buy a vacuum tube for security only the old ideas can give.
Who knows, maybe the whole universe really "is" being run by a little green giant, with lots of puppet strings.
That we will never know, and personally I could care less. What I do care about is ideas, even (perhaps
especially) the clash of ideas. Let's take the selectionist stance here: provide frameworks that promote "better"
ideas at the expense of "worse" ones. Let the good one's multiply, and wish the less good ones happy resting at
their termination.
Then we can squabble (forever?) over the frameworks. Frameworks within frameworks, within frameworks......
contextual variables never stop. We have to stop them artificially or we end up saying nothing about everything
and everything about nothing. So, how do we set frameworks up against each other?
We do this by trying to show where they clash. And they clash everywhere we look. But only if we keep our eyes
open. We have a framework of nature in pieces and nature as interconnected, for example. If pieces are separate
they are not connected, and if they are connected they are not separate. But they seem to be both.
I submit that it is RIGHT HERE that we find one of our major conceptual stumbling blocks: a universe (or brain,
or mind, or embryo) as containing modules that operate in contexts. Its not just that modules compose the
contexts, but are also molded by their contexts. Whamo - a conceptual bootstrap with no fixed points. Crash.
Start again.
John is right that sponge models of brain/mind are silly. He is right that modules do exist. He is right that these
modules have genetic roots. He is right that these modules do not always cohere well. But every module can be
modulated by context. At least its performance can be modulated. Mutual modulations then occur, and bootstraps
return. Human minds get stuck and create artificial boundaries - or pretend that the universe is indeed a big
mushy sponge.
Pandora
John's example is good: Different communication "modules" are worthy of much study. They often fool us. They
are more than mush; more than single buckets. Helen Neville in Oregon found brain "modules" in deaf signing
children that occupied the same locations as auditory "modules" in speaking children. What was fascinating is
that these specialized modules were constrained not by modality but by their "interest in" semantic content. The
constraints were not where most had expected them to be.
This means that an alternative taxonomy had to be established. Modality specific was replaced by function
specific. Function was semantic processing, whether verbal or via sign.
Modules by modality seemed to miss the point. But then the puzzle runs deeper, for these modules do different
things (in detail) depending upon other modules to which they are directly and indirectly connected. Increase the
emphasis upon connections, and the idea of autonomous modules gets shaky. That much is obvious. The solution
is not.
But this problem does not directly address (or even connect obviously with) genetics, preformationism,
plasticity, or a host of other things. It only addresses levels of constraint in the developing individual. Much of
this constraint results from experiences at cell, tissue, organ, and organism levels. Jumping from genes to
ultimate constraints can thus be little more than a throw away phrase in the guise of explanation.
Since I am not a "psychologist" I feel quite comfortable when psychologists are represented as vacuum tube
models of intellectual activity. Hell, if its good enough for engineers........ ! But, psychologists, like engineers,
come in many flavors, and these flavors are changing with new information, and with new generations. I
certainly hope that "psychologists" in the future will not think like their brethren think today. They won't. I
personally don't give a damn for academic labels. Our labels should reflect our interests, and our approaches.
Within psychology there is a huge diversity. Some within this pile are also biologists, or (believe it or not)
engineers by inclination.
Some are genetic preformationists. Some are blank slate artists. Fortunately these two extreme camps are
disappearing. Each left out the other half of the universe. The question is: How do we make a whole universe of
inquiry? "How many problems are there out there? There must be multitudes." You bet! Now, ain't that cool.
Multitudes of separate questions in a single universe. Yea, that's cool. Let's not take our own partial glimpses as
stories of the whole universe.
Great to have an engineer on board! Think I'll now go up and turn on my old MacIntosh amplifier: its got some
cool vacuum tubes that still work after 30+ years. (I think it also has some transistors; is that possible?)
John Fentress
History of Culture
A History of Human Culture

The human is by nature (instinct) a social animal. He has been shaped by evolution over a 4 million year period
to live in small tribes. With the invention of fire and tools about 2 million years ago, his social life became that of
a warrior/hunter. The survival of the individual and immediate family, in those harsh times, depended on the
survival of the tribe. Even in these early times each human became members of several groups within the tribe.
Females were primarily attached to their own children but also grouped with other females for camp
maintenance, care of the sick and wounded, and group food preparation. Those without children grouped for
local foraging for food and campfire fuel. Each male primarily served his own family unit, providing food and
raw materials for housing and clothing. Males formed fishing, hunting or foraging groups to gather communal
food. The males also grouped with all of the other males for defense of tribe and territory. Tribal management
and leadership rested with a select group.
The drives which cause the human to gather into groups and sub-groups are instinctive, the product of millions of
years of evolution. Human instincts have never been uniform, and many instincts are selfish in nature. Successful
group effort requires rules of conduct that everyone follow. Many of these rules require suppression of some
instincts and augmentation of others. Behavior which provides benefit to the survival of the group (and
ultimately the species) is encouraged and behavior which harms the survival of the group is discouraged.
Intellectual control over instinct (self-discipline) developed as a distinguishing characteristic of the human. The
more disciplined the tribe, the more focused its work, the better it survived.
A description of the summed social behavior within a group (tribe or sub-group) is called its culture. Each
individual within the group is autonomous, but cooperative for a common cause. Each is willing (indeed is
driven by his own instincts to do so) to trade certain personal freedoms for the benefits he will gain from the
group. As a free-spirit, each individual in the group contributes his behavior to the culture. The 'culture' of a
group is not an entity with certain characteristics. The 'culture' of a group is the name given to a descriptive
summation of the behavioral characteristics of the group.
Management and planning was required within these ancient tribes. The decision on when to move a camp, for
example, and where it should be moved, was critical to the survival of the entire tribe. These actions are not only
behaviors themselves, and therefore part of the cultural description, they effect all of the behaviors of the
individuals within the tribe. As with tribal leadership, the economic structure was also a part of the cultural
description since it detailed the acceptable tribal norms in bartering and trading.
This is an important distinction. A tenet of intellectual elitist ideology (from Marxist roots) is that it is not the
horse which pulls the wagon, it is the wagon which abuses the horse by requiring its labor, in spite of the horse
being the active element and the wagon the passive. In a like fashion, they claim that it is not the summed
behavior of the individuals which defines the culture, it is the culture which robs the individual of its freedom by
forcing its rules on the individual as a means of control. This, then, removes behavioral responsibility from the
individual and places it on the culture, in spite of the fact that the individual is the active element and the culture
the passive (being merely a description of the summation of all of the behaviors in the group). They also
file:///C|/onelifebook/psy/culhist.html (1 of 10)1/25/2007 4:51:10 PM
History of Culture
eliminate the overlying government and the economic system as portions of the culture, in order to claim it is
they who use the culture to abuse the 'people', when in actual fact these two factors are extremely important in
their contribution to the behavior of the individual and therefore to the description of their summed behaviors
(culture). This also ignores the fact that a large portion of the group (about 70% in the US) are people who work
in and manage those activities.
In a free society, the individual is responsible for and should be held accountable for his own actions, since he
alone makes the behavioral decision. If he is a member of a certain group he must expect to follow the rules of
that group. Unfortunately, many want the benefits of the action of a particular group without sacrificing the
necessary personal freedoms to serve as a member of that group.
The ability of man to provide a set of group acceptable behaviors is the result of man's evolution. The details
within a cultural set of behavioral standards (such as the language spoken) are incidental. Man developed the
ability to speak. It matters not what language he speaks, if the language can provide the needed communication.
It matters not what clothing a culture dictates, if they are protective of both man's environmental and his culture's
social behavioral requirements. So cultures do not evolve from the simple to the complex, it is man's ability to
provide cultures from the simple to the complex that evolved. During the evolution of man, the complexity of his
culture increased in stages, along with and following the evolution of man's cultural ability. Once man was
capable of a complex society and had formed one, others were formed by derivation or modification. If each
element within a group of cultures satisfies the parameter required, though wide differences in practices may
exist, then each culture meets the needs of man for a culture.
Any discussion of culture as a causal portion of the process is in error. Culture is an effect of man's evolutionary
process, not a cause. Any discussion of culture must be in the vein that man changed, then the complexity of his
culture (behavior) changed. This is not to say that all behavior is strictly specified in detail in the coding of the
DNA. No complex animal is completely instinctive. There are memory and reason in all. If a behavior in a
culture should drift to an action so bizarre that it adversely affects the evolutionary birthrate, evolution, if
unrestrained, will quickly nip it in the bud.
The behavior of man (his culture) can affect his ability to survive as a species. An example would be the result of
man allowing his population to expand without control, by that threatening two catastrophic consequences: (1)
When a population is expanding, natural selection is not allowed to remove degrading mutations from the gene
pool unless they are immediately catastrophic. The result is a general degradation of all of man's characteristics
such as intelligence, longevity, health, and the passions such as mothers' love, compassion, cooperation, etc.
along with the substitution of their opposites. The resulting culture drifts toward self-destruction. These
characteristics are visible today. (2) The worldwide ecology, on which man feeds, is limited in resources. Overpopulation brings disease, starvation, and death.
Are cultures unique to man?

Each mobile complex organism has a pattern of individual behavior unique to that species. This set of behaviors
is the culture of that species. That culture provides survival enhancement for that species. All cultures of all
animals, including man, are based on instinct. Some species are able to establish intellectual control over some or
all of their instincts, by that optimizing the combination. Man is capable of this. At one time he did this. He does
not do it now, except in isolated tribal pockets.
History of Culture
Long before man began his journey as a bipedal animal, he had a culture that described his actions. There were
language restrictions (one grunt for food, two for sex.). There were food restrictions. There were food gathering
strategies. There were food sharing strategies. There were strategies in defense against predators. There were
restrictions in working hours. Sleep required certain preparations. The care of the young was paramount. These
were instinctive. This early animal had a small amount of memory and was capable of decision making. He was,
therefore, capable of certain limited behavioral variations. He was quite capable of surviving. Otherwise, we
would not be here.
As man developed, some instincts were strengthened and other instincts were added (e.g., tribal cooperation,
tribal defense, etc.). Added memory allowed extensive variations in serving this growing variety of instincts.
Food sharing strategy instincts were teamed with tribal cooperation instincts intellectually to serve both instincts,
giving birth to our need for a compassionate culture.
Once man became tribal and his tribes became militantly isolated, cultural details diverged. The same instinctual
needs were served by these separate cultures but in slightly different ways. Tribal isolation added to the cultural
complexity. Speech, dress and hair styles were deliberately different to show tribal loyalty and provide a
defensive symbol of defiance against all other tribes. In times of battle they served as identifiers to separate
friend and foe. This cultural divergence is visible today in the ghetto invented language, dress and cultural
background. They are trying to be a tribe that is separate from all others and they do this by providing diverging
cultural identifiers.
Other cultural elements, intellectual products without instinctive roots, have been invented. Hierarchies in the
culture (pecking order) were invented to maintain group control. They were necessary once, when tribes were
small and quick decisions were needed that could not wait for debate and consensus. They are of doubtful value
now.
So, in modern terms, and within our species, what is a culture?

A culture is an agreement by a group of people that establishes personal behavioral standards for that
group. A culture is a restriction of individual freedoms in exchange for a uniform cultural environment, one that
fits the needs of the consensus. The purpose of a culture is to enhance the enjoyment and security of life of its
members. In this vein it provides a uniform societal environment on which each member can depend in making
his behavioral decisions. It provides a comfortable and predictable environment in which to live, work, raise a
family, enjoy recreation, etc.
Some cultures are more successful than others, where success means species well-being and survival over the
long term. Surprisingly, the most successful cultures (on those terms) are the most primitive, such as isolated
tribes in Borneo, Australia and South America. Due to their isolation from the species gene pool, gene flow is
minimized between their very small gene pool and the vastly larger species gene pool and its rapid accumulation
of destructive alleles. Even with large families their numbers remain stable. The limited gene pool size and high
death rate provide conditions that make the gene pool simple for evolution to maintain. If they maintain their
isolation, birth rate and tribal population, their genetic structure will remain trim and healthy.
It must be admitted that this is doing it the hard way. Culture and evolution control may be integrated so that
all may enjoy the current bounty, without sacrificing our future generations to degeneration, degradation,
starvation, countless genetic diseases and eventual extinction. Unfortunately, these cultural compromises are
History of Culture
not acceptable to cultures steeped in dogma, whether the dogma is religious or socialist.
What makes the difference between cultures? What is required of a

stable one?
1. Cultures must have clear-cut and well-expressed rules of conduct. What to do and what is taboo must be
shown in unmistakable terms. A rule of conduct that states that anything goes is not a rule. It is an absence of a
rule. It is a rule against having rules. There is no such thing as a null culture, a culture without individual
freedom restriction. Anarchy is not a culture.
2. A successful culture will provide for the teaching of its rules to its members. The time-honored method of
teaching a culture is the family system. Parents obey the personal restrictions of their culture and teach their
children to do so. School augmentation insures completeness and uniformity. Some rules are also so important
that they must be codified into criminal law.
3. A culture must hold its members responsible for their own actions. The instant that the culture is used as a
basis for the breaking of the cultural rules, that culture ceases to exist. The instant that the breaking of rules by
one is allowed to be justified by the actions of another, then it ceases being a rule of the culture. The purpose of a
rule in a culture is to obtain predictable behavior. If it does not, then the rule becomes invalid. If enough rules are
thus declared invalid, then the culture, which consists of these rules, also becomes invalid.
4. The culture must satisfy tribal instincts. If a culture exists, it must have a reason for existing. The only valid
reason for a particular culture is that it provides a value for its members perceived by them to be greater than that
offered by any other culture. It must differentiate in some manner. If a member of a culture is not loyal to that
culture, he should move to a culture in which he is comfortable or abandon all culture. Remaining in a culture (or
being allowed to do so) while antagonistic to it is not acceptable in any culture. If many members rebel, the
culture collapses, as can be seen in the American culture today. The only successful cultures in America today (if
there are any) are the subcultures. Only there can the tribal instincts be served.
5. To be a successful culture, one that provides a dependable environment for all members, rules that describe all
human interaction must be provided. These standards include language, dress, ethical values, life philosophy,
family structures, customs, music, art, sexual behavior in and out of wedlock, even facial expressions. Each such
rule should be required only for species comfort and longevity. No rule should exist which allows the unbridled
satisfaction of any instinct.
6. A culture is useless if it does not enforce its rules. A culture that defies its own rules, is a con. It has a purpose
other than the health and well-being of its members. A culture that espouses a set of cultural rules that it has no
intention of following, is a hollow culture. Living in a hypocritical manner is worse than anarchy. Such a culture
mocks itself.
7. A culture that does not condemn those who do not abide by its rules has no meaning.
8. A culture based on knowledge and reason must not have any rule without basis. Every rule must be backed up
with an intellectual reason for being. This is absent in all current cultures.
History of Culture
Compassion is emotionally driven, and is an instinct (as are all other cultural forces). When it was developed by
evolution, it was a survival tool. The tribe that showed compassion between its members could survive better
than one that consisted of selfish individuals. Their world was a harsh and dangerous one. Accidents and
sicknesses were common. Floods and famines were common. When an adult was sick or hurt, others helped him
care for his children. Food was shared during food shortages. Sympathy, empathy, family love, tribal love, and
tribal cooperation are all part of this survival aid. This instinct is under siege. It was successful if it reacted within
a small group. When welfare is provided with personal contact, there is a repayment in personal pride and
satisfaction, a joy in seeing the results of the sacrifice. When the tribes became huge so that personal contact was
lost outside the immediate family, this instinct failed on any charity outside the immediate family. Now that the
family unit is also disintegrating, antagonism rather than cooperation is becoming the norm in all social
interactions. The modern teaching of personal rights (I have my rights and you are supposed to be tolerant of
whatever I do) as opposed to personal cooperation, causes compassion to fall into disuse. Even our government
works against the instinct for compassion by taking our money at gunpoint and giving it to a stranger (who we
suspect is undeserving) and doing it inefficiently as well. This instinct is falling into disuse (due to lack of
personal compassionate behavior). Mutations are occurring which are degrading that instinct. Since we have a
population that is increasing rapidly, natural selection will recognize this degradation as successful and spread it
around in the gene pool so that everyone will eventually become demanding and hostile toward his neighbor.
The development of culture

A.ramidus was an ape with feet instead of another set of hands. He brought his behavior from the trees. That
behavior was then modified because of his feet. The species just before ramidus had hands on both ends since it
was before both the ape and the hominid, and the apelike tree dweller was the father of both. Its behavior would
be transferred directly to Ramapithicus, the ape that was contemporary with ramidus, since Ramapithicus
retained all four hands and did not require behavioral change. ramidus, however, had suffered physical change
and was by that compelled to develop new behavior. Primates do not tend to large groups, foraging is much
easier if the group is small. Primates do not tend to cooperative defense patterns against predators. The trees are
always a quick retreat from danger. Primates do not tend to have groups of males who will rally to the defense of
the young and female (an exception is the baboon). ramidus lived on the ground and was a poor climber, even if
he happened to be close to a tree. He had no choice but to develop strategies that would allow him to survive.
Otherwise, his tribe would have perished. For the same reason, ramidus was forced to develop larger tribes for
defense. Still, ramidus did not develop the new cultural patterns. It was evolution by way of instinctive and
intellectual changes to ramidus.
So ramidus developed a different culture from that of ramapithicus. That difference was caused by a physical
change. The new culture was not a product of intelligence. Ramidus had a small brain. He was almost entirely
instinctive. He did not say to himself one day: "You know, I've got to be more protective of my mate and the kids,
otherwise my species is in danger of extinction." The new behavior was a product of evolution. New coding on
his DNA dictated social change in ramidus. The more pugnacious, protective and cooperative male could raise
more children. The more males that stuck together and fought off predators, the more children they collectively
had. The male that picked up a stick and used it to drive off a predator became a better protector and could raise
more children. New intellectual capacity allowed him to form larger groups and collectively protect the young
and female. It was as simple as that, and that is the way a culture is formed.
The ramidus brain lives to this day, buried deep within our own (evolution patches over and adds to, it does not
houseclean), and, in fact, handles most of our instinctual chores. It is the part that makes one jump at a loud
History of Culture
noise. It causes a mother to love her children. It turns you on when you see cute buns. It further handles the
chores of transmitting the things that we reason (the few that are reasoned) to the motor centers that translate
thought into action. It acts as a filter, where instinct says to reason on the way through, "Are you sure you want
to do this?" If you are working in an objective area, such as with a piece of iron, it cares less what you are up to.
Yet let it catch a thought about food, sex, social interaction or survival, and it becomes very interested. This is
why we are so good at building airplanes and yet so poor in providing a rational culture in which to live.
Ramidus moved out on the plains and became a herd herbivore. Then came aferensis, followed by africanus.
Two million years proves that the ancient hominid and his resulting culture were successful. By then, evolution
had given him a modest increase in his brain size to handle the complexities of some needed improvements in his
culture (they came after the brain increase and were the result of the increase). When mutations provided a slight
increase in brain power (either instinctive or rational) the recipients improved in their ability to handle cultural
complexity and were by that able to raise more children. A successful animal tends to increase in population.
Increased populations bring competition for food and space. Africanus had learned about basic weapons in
defending his tribes from predators. The stage was set for the competition of man with man.
When a group of animals forage, the small group is more efficient than the large. This is caused by the overrun of
an already foraged area. If one is behind others foraging, he will come upon a foraged over area and must walk
through the others to find a fresh area. If only a dozen are in the foraging party, the walk-through is swift. If a
couple of hundred are foraging, the walk through uses up time needed for feeding This is especially critical for
herbivores. Herbivores eat low energy food, so they must eat all day. The time lost in walking effects how much
food is gathered. While small groups are more efficient in feeding, they are vulnerable to predators. A small child
would have little chance with a pack of wild dogs, for example, if his only protectors were his parents. Larger
groups can pool their protection resources. A conflict exists between the two requirements (obtaining food and
avoiding predation) and different animals use different herd sizes and other strategies.
The strategies adopted by the early hominid were successful. They survived. Their population grew. When a
hominid tribe became too large, part of the tribe separated and went to the other end of the valley. The valley
now contained two tribes. As long as the valley was big compared with the number in each tribe, there was no
problem. Still, both tribes grew, the valley was not big enough for four tribes, and no one knew what was on the
other side of the mountain. Each tribe thought the whole valley should belong to them. There was no fraternizing
between the tribes. Every time a male stole a woman from another tribe, he brought home the flu or something
worse. Strict rules had to be made. The tribe that had to make do with a trickle of water out of a spring was
jealous of the neighboring tribe that had a lake. There was always that competition over foraging territory. The
tribes became militantly isolated.
Homo habilis came, with a larger brain and a more complex society. He invented the use of fire. He was now
able to tenderize some of his food. He could roast roots and tubers. Meat could now be cooked so that he could
eat it. He no longer had to wait for a carcass to get half rotten before he could treat himself to some real protein.
He could now kill his own and have fresh meat, medium rare, right off the spit.
Homo erectus made the big jump in culture. A confirmed meat eater, he did not need to forage all day. He could
eat a couple of pounds off a kill, make a sling out of the skin, throw twenty pounds of his kill over his shoulder,
take his family and friends and go traveling. There was no longer any need for tribal confinement. If it became
too crowded anywhere, the tribe packed up and went somewhere else. Wherever erectus went, he formed new
tribes The cultures of today are the modern versions of these ancient tribes. In search of food and safety, ancient
History of Culture
hominid tribes would travel to the next valley and set up shop. Isolated from other hominid tribes, each
developed an ever more differing set of behaviors, dress and language. There was little friendship between tribes,
mainly because of the competition for the same food source. Tribal isolation also acted as a deterrent to
contagious diseases. As each tribe grew, it encroached on the domain of the other. Often there was trouble.
Mostly it would be killings in the ground between the two tribes, but friction could easily develop into open
warfare, and it often did. Two million years of hominid tribal life preceded the last ten thousand or less in the
open structure of the modern world. Ten thousand years ago (an instant in the hominid history), the world wide
occupation of all man was hunter-gatherer. That is a tribal occupation. Man is a tribal animal. He is born that
way. It will be another million years before it could possibly be bred out of him. A good tribal man thinks that
his tribe is the only one. Those other tribes are at the least a nuisance and quite possibly a real danger. Since the
people in the other tribe thought in the same way, it was always a powder keg waiting for a match. One does not
love that neighboring tribe, especially when food is scarce. It became time to grab a spear and chase them off. If
no one wanted to move on, then the tribe with the most members alive after the battle took over the whole
territory. It was a matter of survival. Evolution loved it. Evolution reinforced it by selecting on a stronger and
stronger coding for tribalism. Very recently in time, as far as evolution goes, the tribes coalesced into countries
or major parts of countries, each with its own unique ethnic culture.
Conclusion: Man needs one central worldwide culture with as much commonality as possible.
Multiculturalism is well meaning and compassionate. Both terms are instinctive. Our instincts no longer fit well
with our environment. They were constructed during a four million-year period to be tribal in nature. The tribal
instinct is to be militant toward all who are not members of your own tribe. Multiculturalism is irrational.
Promoting multiculturalism and diversity makes things worse.
To cram a bunch of people into the same city, they must be made to believe that they belong to the same tribe.
That is called integration. Integration is a rational solution to this problem with this instinct. That same
relationship can be extended to cover the world. This is not a reasoning problem. It is a problem with an instinct
(tribalism), one that cannot be solved by using another instinct (compassion). That tribal instinct has been in the
inner brain for at least two million years, possibly four. Only evolution can root it out. That will take a bunch of
time, like perhaps millions of years. Don't think for a minute that this problem can be solved by teaching reason
(tolerance). The tribal instinct was embedded in the brain first, big and strong, long before reason came.
The tribal instinct can be bypassed, however, by forming one big tribe.
Multiculturalism breeds strife, since it preaches the differences between men and their cultures. It intensifies the
tribal instinct by reinforcing it through reason. Integration brings peace since it preaches the similarities of
cultural values. It diminishes the tribal instinct by reason. This is not an indictment of any culture, it is an
indictment of the emotionally inspired but less than intelligent notion that two tribes can occupy the same
campsite without both undergoing major cultural compromises. It sounds reasonable, but old ramidus in there
doesn't think so. That is where this tribal instinct is, burned into that inner brain. Ramidus was not much into
reasoning. Mention forcing him to live at the same watering hole with another tribe and he starts looking around
on the ground for a big rock. We need to convince him that those other guys are friends and they are from the
same tribe. And mean it. The way to do it is to have one and only one culture. How long will it take to do this
around the world? Anything less than 10,000 years would be a real winner.
Man can be quite intellectual. When working on things (where he is objective and constrained by the
History of Culture
characteristics of matter) he does quite well, but he lives subjectively (instinctively). He may not try to spear that
guy in the next car but he will do his best to beat him away from the stoplight. He may work quite well on
something tangible, but the end goal is usually sex. And there are murders every day from greed or lust. Still,
instincts are not all that bad. It is instinct that get things done and that is the name of our game. When we build
an objective thinking machine, and we will soon, how can it be motivated? If we want it to solve a problem, a
man will be required to push the machine into action. It will not have instincts to drive it into action. The most
logical thing for it to do would be to sit idle and save electricity. It will need prodding to make it work. On the
other hand, man is driven and it is his instinct that drives him. All those instincts must be addressed in a culture.
Our new culture must treat man's instincts with compassion, even the ones perverted by evolution. Not by
allowing them full sway. Some of those passions can be quite devastating to society, but even those must be
recognized and intelligently dealt with.
An instinct may be satisfied, without yielding to the instinct. All we need to do is understand it and its
source, and give it a substitute to chew on.
The problems in reshaping our culture.

The main stream American culture was derived from European Christian roots. No longer dominant, its days are
numbered. It is being replaced by a culture that negates all of the factors listed above which are normally
associated with cultures. They do not believe in a common language. They do not believe in any restrictions
concerning dress and think that any personal relationship is acceptable. They are against any fixed policies
concerning the conduct of families. They generally oppose punishment for criminals, excepting cases involving
racial bigotry or female abuse. They do not believe in racial distinctions, but they fan racial conflicts. They
profess no central philosophical beliefs. They voice an active embracing of all cultures, while denying the selfdiscipline required to conform to any of them. They, in fact, embrace all other cultures while denying a culture of
their own. They deny the value system of any other culture, along with avoiding the required self-discipline to be
a member of any of them. They call this a culture, where it, in fact, is the denial of the concept of culture. It is an
anti-culture. They deplore that others are bigoted, intolerant and insensitive (in areas of race and sex). Whereas
they are the most bigoted, intolerant and insensitive of all (toward those who disagree with them). They never
argue any point in a rational manner. They, instead, become abusive, emotional and outraged. Be forewarned.
These will be the biggest enemies of a culture based on knowledge and will bring out their full lexicon of hateful
names to fight it. Unfortunately, this anti-culture dominates the education field. It may very well be that a
rational culture is not possible in this country. Perhaps it will be a foreign country, possibly even a third world
country, who will spearhead the effort, one that does not have this animosity toward restrictive culture.
Observe modern primitive tribes such as some in Australia, Borneo and Africa. With minor physical and mental
hereditary differences, they live an entirely different life from that of the denizens of Silicon Valley, Wall Street,
or university faculty row. Few will deny that transporting an infant from those primitive societies, or any other
for that matter, to one of ours can produce a well adjusted and perfectly fitting member of our main stream
society (the author has two examples in his own family). The intellectual portion of culture is an add-on to the
brain. It is a learned process.
This is another reason that the emotional call for multiculturalism and cultural diversity is so silly. It deliberately
places social impediments in the path of communication between all mankind. A culture is a learned process.
Therefore, it is one that can be learned, even by those from another culture. With an infant, it is a one step
History of Culture
process. It becomes more painful and difficult with age, and approaches impossibility at advanced age. So what
if it takes a hundred generations to reach a common world wide culture? Ease the transitional pain with time,
education and understanding. Allow everyone to maintain their own cultural habits as long as possible while
making the transition as easy as possible.
Since culture is a learned process, then education is the key to establishing a new worldwide culture. Since the
new world wide culture based on knowledge is a culture foreign to all existing cultures, including our own, the
transitional pain will be the same for all. It may be more painful for us than others because a major part of our
current culture is an anti-culture, one that seeks to destroy cultural harmony by segmenting and segregating its
members to the nth degree and which largely refuses to establish cultural disciplines of its own. We will not only
need to replace our current culture, but we must combat counterculture forces as well. It would be far easier to go
from the tribe in Borneo, which will be defensive but is accustomed to and obedient to an agreed to set of
behavioral values, than to go from our culture that is set against self-discipline with respect to any set of values.
Why do these tribes live as they do? Why do the individuals in the tribes behave as they do? They have the same
brains as we. They are as alert and learn as fast. They have the same amount of learned things, age for age, in
their brains as we. It is only a different set. A study of their lives gives great insight into ancient man. Early
homo sapiens sapiens, too, lived a harsh life. His mind was as active as ours (possibly more so). Yet his
communication was primitive, requiring large speech brain power to meet a far smaller communication
requirement. Memory requirements were higher than ours, because all knowledge had to be passed down by
word of mouth, an error fraught method at best. He had to essentially learn bit by bit for his daily needs, as does
modern primitive man. The difference between these primitive cultures and our modern one lies in our ability to
collect and record knowledge and hand it down intact. The mechanism for handling knowledge, of reasoning its
consequences and forming decisions, is present in all man, a gift from billions of years of evolution.
Education, then, is basic to cultural modification. That education must consist of knowledge (no opinion, no
conjecture, no dogma). Give students the information. They can supply the reasoning. To allow full freedom for
the mind to manipulate, give it the raw information and let it come to its own conclusion. Do not teach that we
should save the whales, teach instead in great detail what a whale is. Let the student see its beauty and its danger.
They will be far more militant in saving it. Tell the students the facts, not what they are supposed to reason from
the facts. The only time that students need to be taught how to feel about data, is when that opinion is foreign to
proper thought. This is why socialism must be taught as answers, not data and questions. Let the students see and
understand what their actions should be. Do not act shocked with what comes out. They might just come out with
a better set of values than yours.
Our new culture must be allowed to grow naturally. To do that the educational environment must not be
restrictive or biased in any direction.Schools must be politically, socially and culturally neutral. This will be
the hardest thing for us all to do: Keep our hands off and watch our own little pet bigotries go down the drain.
It is a knowledge-based culture that we want, not the one based on conjecture, opinion, emotion and dogma that
we have now. That one is not working. It can't be made to work. Teach these new students as much factual
information as we can gather, they will do just fine without the teacher's advice on how to live and what to
believe. In a couple of generations, we will have teachers that will not want to cram their culture (or lack of
culture) down the student's throats. Ones who will be content with providing good clean fact in the most
understandable and unbiased way possible.
History of Culture
Government and the Human
Governments and Human Cultures

A culture is an agreement by a group of people on individual behavior within that group. In ancient times the
tribe was the culture and all citizens participated in both its formation and enforcement. From Ramidus to the
early days of Homo Habilis, a period of more than two million years, man was a herd herbivore. With the
discovery of weapons and fire, he shifted to living in tribes of hunter-gatherers. He lived in hunter-gatherer tribes
until about ten thousand years ago, a period of another two million years. He has lived under large scale
governments less than five thousand years, about one tenth of one percent of the time. During that time, more
and more of the basic rules within a culture have been shifted to a centralized government.
Evolution, over a four million year period, provided man with instincts that are tuned to tribal living.
The instinct of man, shared by both man and woman and embedded by evolution over a four million year period,
is to be responsible for himself, his family and his tribe. Species survival would not have been possible without
this necessary drive. They loved their family and wanted to take care of them. They supported their tribe because
survival without them was impossible. The contribution of everyone in the tribe was necessary for tribal survival.
Developed along with that instinctive responsibility came the instinct for self-reliance. In ancient times, the
family would perish without the dedication and determination of both parents. Self-reliance demands individual
freedom in order to function. One cannot exercise self-reliance if someone else dictates his actions, or provides
his needs if he fails. For self-reliance to be reinforced the rewards of action taken within that freedom must not
be taken away and the possibility and consequence of failure must be allowed. Life, to be lived to its fullest, must
be a participatory experience. Modern dogma preaches that man should treat life as a spectator sport, one in
which he has no serious personal involvement. Others tell him what to do and give him what they deem he
should have. He is then admonished to be happy and have high self-esteem.
The actions of man living naturally (instinctively) may be observed in modern day primitive tribes. The primitive
tribes in South America, Borneo and Australia are quite possibly representative of man prior to ten thousand
years ago. Most of the tribes in Africa are probably not representative since most of them are quite large and
many have been under the influence of overlying European influence too long. Exceptions may exist among
isolated smaller tribes.
In all cases the tribes are patriarchal and there are cultural divisions (classes) by age and sex. The duties and
social positions are different in these divisions. Tribal customs (laws) are complex and strict. All adult males
participate in the tribal government. The tribal leaders hold office by common consent (a form of democracy).
The tribal leaders and the tribesmen are personally acquainted and often kin. The communication lines between
leader and citizen are direct and short.
About 10,000 years ago, the population of man began expanding. Larger and larger tribes began forming. Groups
of tribes made alliances. Layers of management were needed in government. Due to geographical separations
between citizen and leader, communication was slow and cumbersome. Today, we have governments (tribes)
file:///C|/onelifebook/psy/culgov.html (1 of 7)1/25/2007 4:51:11 PM
which cover hundreds of millions of people and hundreds of sub-cultures (tribes within tribes). It was during this
population growth that the common man became isolated from his leaders. It is a condition that is not compatible
with man's instincts. If man is to be content, he must have a direct voice in his own government. The form of the
overlying government must be one that allows personal participation in its management by each citizen.
Man tends to form tribes with the slightest provocation. He joins with others like him, and identifies his group as
separate by speech, ideology, dress, art or mannerisms. The Boy Scouts, NAACP, Baptist church and the PTA
are examples. When governing bodies become large, they also tend to become tribal, to separate themselves from
those they govern. The result is that the governing tribe tends to victimize the governed, and the governed tribe
frets under the rule of the "other tribe." Some countries, such as the US, have many governing entities (tribes).
Members of each are loyal to "their own." The tribe that we call congress, is a different bunch from IRS, CIA,
FBI, CAA, FAA, the justice system, the white house bunch, etc. That same pattern is repeated at the state, county
and municipal level. Man not only becomes isolated from his leaders, he becomes totally confused with the
whole structure.
The term "culture" for a given group covers all behavior within that group. As such, it must encompass the
cultural rules (laws) of the overlying government. One cannot form a culture which encourages bank robbery, for
example, under a government that does not allow it. There are no governments on the face of this earth that do
not intrude, and excessively so, into personal behavior. A sub-culture under any government must tailor its
behavior to that of the overlying government. The government culture (tribe) has a great advantage in enforcing
its culture on all of the sub-cultures under it. An example is the blatant teaching of socialism in all of our public
schools.
A government is a formal organization to protect, administer and enforce a culture.
History abounds in conflicts between a sub-culture and its overlying controlling government. One of the most
famous is that of the government of Rome and the Jewish sub-culture at the time of Christ. A culture is at its
strongest when the government and the culture correspond. A modern example would be Iran where the joining
of individual and group (government) behavior is seamless. A modern government/cultural conflict exists in the
US. The elements of morality of the people have different definitions when practiced by the government. This
leads to such conflicts as a womanizing president preaching family values to the public.
Although tribal instincts do cover the need for man to cooperate in living and working together, they apparently
do not cover forms of government. Complex governments appear to be a modern (intellectual) development as a
result of life style changes within the last 10,000 years. In a hunter gatherer society (covering all of mankind up
to 10,000 years ago), tribes are small, rarely more than a few hundred. The ruling hierarchy in such small groups
is rarely more than two or three tiers. In reviewing written history, early large governments were usually based
on religion and monarchy, with the monarch being a sacred being in the religion. Since religion is a strong and
cohesive force as a culture, large groups could be considered merely large extended tribes.
Since the theoretical form of government is not instinctive, an intellectual form of government is possible
without instinctive conflict. The function of the government is, however, individually restrictive and there it must
take heed of the instinctive needs of the individual.
The problem with any government is that it invariably becomes political (separately tribal). The instant it is
formed it no longer represents the citizens It immediately starts forming its own tribe and its culture begins
drifting. A fresh new government formed to serve the people, immediately begins plans on how the people can
serve the government. The only way this can be offset is requiring that certain key positions have limited tenure
(keep shifting new members of the common tribe into the government tribe and removing them as fast as they
become tainted).
The problem with the politics of a government is that politicians are involved. Almost the instant that a
citizen is elected, he becomes a politician. Give someone authority and they will immediately begin to use it,
rarely in the direction promised before the election. Politicians are a devious lot who have their own tribal
culture, a culture characterized by being parasitic. They not only live lavishly on our money, they lay awake
nights trying to figure out ways to do a better job of extracting our money and living more lavishly. They do this
by selling the citizens (or forcing on them) expensive programs and then using the programs as a basis for raising
taxes high enough to allow plenty of skimming room.
The problem with politicians is that they demand legions of bureaucrats under them. They seek status by
the number of bureaucrats that they can get on their payroll. Each added bureaucrat strengthens the resolve of the
political tribe and thereby subtracts from the ability of the government to perform the function that was intended
for it.
Some forms of government intrude on personal behavior more than others. Iran, for example, strictly enforces the
rules of behavior of one religion on all of its citizens, yet allows free-enterprise and private ownership. North
Korea, a socialist country, on the other hand, controls the daily lives of each citizen in detail, even to dress,
speech and art. Such a government is no more than a prison, with the bars installed on its borders.
The desire is, then, a protective and permissive overlying government, one which supplies the essentials and is
culturally neutral on all matters below the essential level. That does not mean that this government should be
allowed to force or coerce cultural neutrality on its citizens thereby diminishing the sphere of any sub-culture.
Nor should it encourage any sub-culture, especially its own. Furthermore, this government must be responsive to
its citizens.
A Democracy?
The word "democracy" comes immediately to mind. In the broadest sense, it has never been made to work. One
of the ancient Greek city-states had a go at it once. It was short-lived. And it had restrictions. Only certain people
could vote. The mish-mash we have in the US is one of the best governments in the world but it is far from a
democracy.
The closest form of government devised by man which allows large populations, yet allows the individual a
voice in his government, would be a democracy. The theory of a democracy is that each citizen will objectively
vote for the welfare of the entire culture. In small groups, such as a tribe, this works quite well, especially when
the vote is vocal and in front of friends. Democracy fails to deliver that ideal in large groups where votes are
anonymous and the votes of strangers are counted together. In such case, all people vote in self-interest. To
further distort the democracy, if there is no self-interest then people tend not to vote.
An unrestricted democracy ordains equal voting rights for all citizens. If all citizens were alike, then this would
be reasonable, but they are not. 5,000 years ago, a true democracy could possibly have worked and perhaps did,
especially on near tribal population levels. Evolution maintained a lean gene pool in those days. Genetic diversity
is now, more and more, providing citizens who are unlike, physically, mentally and instinctively (socially).
An unrestricted democracy has never been tried in known history. All framers of governments in history have
shied away from it. The US, for example, is not a true democracy. It also currently restricts voting to above a
certain age and revokes voting rights for felons (both of which are quite reasonable restrictions). The US also
insulates most law-making from the voter and allows jury participation only under closely controlled conditions.
If history is to be followed, a restricted democracy is indicated, one which is designed to approach the ideal but
makes allowances for the capability of the individual voter. In an intellectual culture, a vote must be considered
an earned privilege, as opposed to a right. The would-be voter must meet certain intellectual standards, if he is to
provide an intelligent vote on an intellectual solution to cultural problems. Conversely, in such a culture, every
qualified citizen should be required to vote.
The idea behind the age limit is a good one. It says that voting is a responsible act and, in general, citizens under
a certain age have not reached the proper level of maturity. Age alone is not a reliable measure of maturity.
Maturity is difficult to define. Some reach maturity much earlier than others. Some never do. A far better
indicator of responsibility lies in citizen performance. If the citizen makes his own way (is not receiving public
support) and pays taxes, then he has demonstrated his maturity. Others show inability to manage their own
affairs, a good indicator that their voting maturity is also questionable. The removal of voting rights from felons
is a good idea and citizens who fail to have a high school education or its equivalent should be denied voting
privileges.
Conflicts of interest are also voting problems. Government employees should not be allowed to vote in elections
concerning their own work, for example. No government group should have the power to vote their own rewards
(such as our congress).
A democracy is not a true one if other political forms appear before it. The idea behind a democracy is that each
citizen has a vote which he can cast to elect an official or modify an element of the government over him. The
US is an example of layers of interests between the citizen and the exercise of his voting rights. It is not a
democracy if the voter does not have his choice in his vote. He does not have that choice in the US, instead, he
has the choice of those presented by intervening political organizations. All political groups are for the express
purpose of subverting the desires of the general citizenry (otherwise they have no reason for being since a direct
vote would satisfy their desires as well). A true democracy cannot exist if political groups are allowed between
the citizen and his government or to influence the conduct of the government after the citizens have chosen
leaders with policies that are acceptable to them. In short, any political organization or lobby function should be
declared criminal against the rights of the public. Anyone associating with such groups should answer to charges
in court that parallel current fraud and theft punishment. An elected official caught dealing with such groups
should face sentences exactly twice that. Only then can the individual be assured that his vote counts where he
wants it to count.
Streamlining the Government
Along with the growth of complexity in our government over recent history, large businesses also became highly
complex (IBM, GM, ATT and the like). Both government and such big businesses have layer after layer of
management, each layer densely populated with bureaucrats. The need for these huge organizations arose from
the need for information processing and flow. The president of GM, for example, had no means of
communication with the guy on the line screwing radiators into place, except through the information processing
and transfer means supplied by those layers of management and legions of bureaucrats. With the long delay in
information flow, the tendency was to get out of step with reality. Many did. It proved quite costly.
The businesses, however, have competitors. The efficient organization gets the worm. As communications and
data processing hardware and software became available, the businesses suddenly realized that a lot of those
intermediate levels were not only costly and superfluous, they actually slowed the information flow process
down. Enter the idea of down-sizing. The clamor was for the government to do the same. Unfortunately, the
government has a monopoly. They responded by forming new departments in addition to the old ones, to handle
the data flow and processing, then had the flow interrupted and routed back through the same old offices. The
government tribe takes care of its own.
If modern technology was forced on the government, and that is the only way they will ever embrace it properly,
it would be possible to streamline it sufficiently to make a democracy work. Modern communications, properly
installed, would solve the problem of citizen direct to government exchange.
An example would be using the internet to control the chaos of elections. Allow each candidate a ten megabyte
site (not his own server). Restrict him to describing himself and his stand on issues. Allow him limited space for
comparison with other candidates. Forbid him any paid advertising. Allow him any public exposure he wishes,
but forbid media coverage.
Security is becoming adequate on the internet to allow charge cards. That is sufficient coverage to allow voting
by e-mail.
Any responsible citizen (not on the dole and a tax-payer) will already have a computer. The government could
set up 800 numbers for dial-in voting for the few without internet access . The government already knows who is
on the dole and who pays taxes. Duplicate votes would be easy to trace.
What are the essentials of government?
1. Defense:
Until a single world-wide overlying government can be established, defense will be required. A nation which has
a rational culture based on provable knowledge will be immensely successful in providing goods and services. If
all citizens are free, live in a dependable culture, and have equal opportunity, not only will they have great
personal satisfaction but they will happily produce for themselves and others. Other nations will be intensely
jealous.
2. Individual fulfillment:
The individual must be free to pursue his own dreams. He must be given equal opportunity based on merit. He
must be allowed to have, and required to have, full responsibility for his own decisions. He must then be allowed
to succeed or fail, only by that can he assume full responsibility, and be held fully responsible, for his own
decisions. The public is responsible to educate each individual, where that education extends to provable
knowledge and a career. As long as he performs to acceptable standards, he must be educated to enter his chosen
career. He also must be educated throughout his schooling in cultural discipline and self-discipline (he will be
taught how to act, not what to think). Cooperation must be stressed, as opposed to personal rights. Private
schools will be allowed to teach any subject they wish and may be attended by anyone who wishes to do so, but
not at public expense.
3. Integration:
In order to minimize individual and group friction due to inherited tribal instincts, a single world-wide culture
must be formed. Every required and desired individual behavior must be codified, along with the details of
enforcement. Each rule must be stated briefly and plainly. Each such cultural rule is acquired, modified, or
removed by democratic vote.
A common world-wide language is necessary. Since the selection of any will cause cries of anguish from all
others, perhaps now is the time to embrace a new language, a scientific one which is unambiguous and simple to
express in written form. Perhaps it is time for our linguists to come forward and earn their keep.
4. A justice system which seeks truth and justice:
The adversarial justice system is an archaic throwback to the days when disputing parties hired mercenaries to
represent them in armed conflict. Under this system each side is required to distort evidence in their favor. The
side whose lies are the most convincing wins.
Sophistry (stretching truth for personal gain) is practiced by all lawyers, indeed it is required by their code of
ethics. Most elected people are lawyers. They are influential in the community. Their sophistry has become a part
of our culture. So rare is honesty in speech in our modern culture that a straight answer to a question is never
believed. The media no longer reports fact, it puts an ideological (socialist) spin on every event. It is time to stop
this nonsense.
A justice system based on seeking truth with fixed penalties and an unpleasant (not cruel or unhealthy) penal
system must be established. No extenuating circumstance allowed in the courtroom. No paroles allowed from
prison. Education and work is required of all inmates. None of the niceties, ice cream, TV, movies, etc. should be
allowed in any jail or prison.
5. Compassionate care for the deserving unfortunates:
Welfare will be reserved for those who are deserving and in need, such as the elderly, sick or infirm. Examples:
School drop-outs do not get welfare, ever. Those with HIV, an avoidable disease, who did not innocently get the
disease, do not deserve public support. Drug addicts do not get welfare or free medical care. In interests of
cutting back the population, at its most vulnerable position, entry to welfare should require sterilization of those
who may have children (not the elderly, children, or infirm).
6. Population control:
Birth must be controlled by law. No one has the right to have a child. They must, instead, meet stringent health,
education and economic requirements. A ceiling must be placed on allowed annual births. An unauthorized birth
must be severely dealt with. Loss of children and jail time for both parents should be automatic.
Sterilization should be required on entry to any jail or prison.

A genetic analysis is required of any prospective parent. Those with any known genetic defect should not be
allowed to have children. They may instead adopt children who are orphans or were born illegally, if they meet
the other requirements as parents. Note!! This action will not stop species degeneration, but it will slow it down
considerably.
8. General:
Until world-wide acceptance of the new culture is achieved, it may be necessary for the pioneering political
group to establish population isolation.
Death of Our Culture
An Epitaph for the Western Culture

The Western Culture came to America with the early settlers from western Europe, primarily the British Isles. It
was predominantly based on the Christian religion with elements of English jurisprudence and commercial law.
It was a productive and uniform culture which extended into the minute detail of human behavior. It was
extremely successful in the development, in a space of only two centuries, of the United States from a small
isolated community of pioneers to the productive, wealthy and powerful country that it is today. This culture is
now under mortal attack, is severely wounded and will succumb in the near future. It has already lost over half of
its supporters and its enemies have the high ground in the media, justice, governing, and education institutions.
Its life expectancy is now less than two more generations through our public schools.
Definitions:
Real knowledge is knowledge that has been recorded, verified by measurement, or can otherwise be shown to be
a measure of the real universe or a portion thereof.
Dogma is 'knowledge' obtained through hearsay, conjecture, imagination, introspection or reasoning based on
such sources..
A culture (see first reader comment below) is the collective behavior within a particular human community. A
description of a given culture details how the members of that community live and interact. Such a description
would include the following, given in order of behavioral precedence:
The administration system (democracy, socialist, republic, dictatorship, monarchy, etc.) establishes the
overall social environment. The cultural rules (laws) formulated and administered by this group mold the
individual behaviors of all community members. The attitudes and behaviors of the leaders further affect
individual behaviors.
The economic system (free-enterprise, socialist) greatly effects personal behavior since a large part of
individual actions (behaviors) are concerned with producing and obtaining the goods (assets) necessary
for survival and personal fulfillment. The moods and modes of goods distribution determine the attitudes
and, therefore, the behaviors of the individuals.
The technology available to the community establishes its ability to create assets and multiplies the
ability of the individual to provide its own survival needs and fulfillment requirements. Technology
available to a culture effects the behaviors of the individuals within that culture. If the technology
exceeds current survival requirements it provides individual time for sports and other recreational and
life enhancement activities.
The physical assets of a culture provide the infrastructure in which the culture subsists. The wealth of a
culture is the result of both an industrious and saving set of behaviors. Wealth also effects behavior.
The education system determines the form and content of the culture (collective behavior). What it
teaches one generation becomes the culture of the next. Ideally an education system would be used to
file:///C|/onelifebook/psy/culseige.html (1 of 14)1/25/2007 4:51:13 PM
stabilize the culture by teaching its detail and increasing the technical abilities of the culture by teaching
real knowledge.
Arts, crafts, drama, sports, literature, and philosophy - When survival is precarious, all behavior is
pointed in the direction of survival. When survival is assured with a reasonable amount of security, and
there is time remaining , interests turn toward more frivolous behaviors. Many consider these as being
the essentials of culture, but, although the most noticeable, these are incidental. They are not common
across a culture as is required for the facets described above, one form being as acceptable as any other.
Within a culture there is little restriction, if any, on the form and content of any of these. As a result the
detail of these activities is quite variable. Their content, importance and application depend on the whims
of the moment, usually of the quite young.
All of the behavioral elements within a culture are interdependent. If an element is changed, it effects all other
elements. When a single behavioral rule is changed in a culture the culture becomes a new one, since the effect
of that one change ripples through all of the other facets.
The human, by instinct, is strongly tribal (social), with emphasis on small groups. (See Evolution of Man) Group
loyalty is inversely proportional to tribal size. This requirement for joining with others began four million years
ago with Ramidus, a human ancestor who lived two million years before the first Homo. When this ape-thatwalked ventured onto the forest floor, he found that with his stiff legs he could not take to the trees and out-climb
the big cats. As a bipedal he could not stay on the forest floor and out-run them. He was not strong or ferocious
enough to out-fight them on an individual basis. The pregnant females and the very young faced slaughter.
Community cooperative defense was his only option. One of the strongest human social drives (instincts) is
defense of tribe. It is at least four million years old.
It was then a short step to perform other tribal functions as group efforts. Such cooperation requires a set of
behavioral rules (culture). Cooperation (social interaction) began long before the human developed intellectually.
All of the social drives within the human are instinctive. (See An Introduction to Psychology) Conversely, all
human instincts effect human culture (collective behavior). The human uses, and needs, social interaction as a
means of survival. This social dependency within a species is common among the higher animals.
The human is tribally dependent. He will form tribes (subcultures) at the drop of a hat. A single human may
consider himself a member of many social groups, often groups within groups (tiered subcultures). Some he joins
for a livelihood, others for sport or recreation, and some are political in nature. The overall culture acts as a
collective umbrella over all of these subcultures. All subcultures must meet the requirements in behavior of the
next cultural level above.
The overall culture is the collective effort within a community to provide a satisfactory social climate. An ideal
culture would result in a community with assets allowing a comfortable survival, safety from other groups of
people, and a social atmosphere in which to peacefully work, raise a family and to otherwise seek personal
fulfillment and happiness. The human behavior in the acquisition and maintenance of those assets is basic to
human culture.
In the same sense that a census report details the demographics of a given community, a cultural description is
the detail of the collective individual behaviors within a community. It expresses a community effort. It is the
community which establishes the desired individual behavior and it is the community which enforces its
requirements. If the misbehavior (disobedience to community behavior requirements) is serious it is considered a

crime, lesser disobedience may be considered a misdemeanor, still lesser may be considered a community
nuisance and the most minor may bring only censure from others in the community. Other individual behaviors
deemed desirable are encouraged by the community through rewards, both real and social.
Not so, say the liberal/socialists. This definition is in opposition with theirs. Marxist philosophy, in its typical
reversal of cause and effect in which the tail always wags the dog, insists that a culture is an oppressive
controlling device forced on the public by evil class masters for the purposes of subjugation and exploitation.
There may have been cases in history where this was true. It is certainly not true in the United States.
Value Systems and Virtuous Conduct

The rules of conduct within a culture establish the desired behavior of the individual. These rules are called the
'value system' within that culture. The individual then behaves in a manner which may be judged by the others
within the community with respect to the cultural value system. If the individual conducts himself well, then his
conduct is considered 'virtuous' with respect to that value system.
History
The culture of the United States at the time of its founding had been brought from Western Europe by the early
settlers and was primarily based on the Christian religion. This culture included a strong work ethic, sexual
discipline, individual independence, personal responsibility, a strict value system and virtuous conduct as
behavioral elements. This culture was uniform across the early colonies. There was very little variation in
individual behavior across class and geographical boundaries.
Many of these early people were fugitives from governmental religious persecution in Europe. In their fear of a
repetition in their new country, it was decided early that in order to protect the churches from the state, their new
government must have separation between church and state. This separation was demanded in order to protect
religious worship from the government. There was no thought at that time of protecting the government from the
church. This latter interpretation came much later and is the basis of much of the cultural change today. That
interpretation also powers the ability of those who wish to destroy the original culture. In an amazing switch, a
new interpretation of a cultural rule became the nemesis of the culture which established the rule.
The principle of separation of church and government wherein a government activity was protected from the
church, was first applied with the advent of the public schools. It was heralded as a breakthrough. With all of the
different sects clamoring for their views to be taught, the schools could not have possibly satisfied them all
anyway. Even trying to do so would be far too wasteful of valuable teaching time. The idea that a school was a
place to learn real knowledge instead of dogma and that religious matters were the responsibility of the family
and church seemed logical.
The problem was that the idea was not carried far enough. If the dogma being banned had not been limited to
only religious dogma but had been extended to all dogma, the desired result would have been attained. There
were no other outstanding social dogmas in the US at the time, however, and so the error was not realized. Few
recognize the error even today. Even if the ban had been extended to cover only religious and anti-religious
dogma it would have at least left a level cultural playing field. But such was not the case. The field was left open
to any other dogma, no matter how outrageous, to enter and dominate the education system, without opposition.
Socialism is a social (cultural) disease. Whereas free-enterprise and self-determination are known to be millions
of years old in the human lineage, and therefore are instinctive in the human, socialism has absolutely no factual
basis. It is an insidious and all-encompassing culture which claims it is not a culture at all. It has the same
relationship with any other culture as HIV has to the human body. If unchained it swallows all other cultures.
Although fragments of socialism have been known, and in some cases practiced since the city states of ancient
Greece, the virulent strain now furnishing the ideology for the academic elite came from Karl Marx, a malcontent
who spent his life devising a means to destroy his own culture. It is very likely, it seems, that he has succeeded.
The education system in the US is by design a closed loop positive feedback process (intellectual incest). (See
Dynamics) It trains its own replacements. It judges itself. It produces the leaders for government, media and
justice, who then in turn support the ideology they learned in the education system. Each generation of students
through the system then provides children who are more receptive. Once Marxism gained voice in the education
system, the rest is history. There was and is no known means of controlling it. There are no adversaries. The
church is so busy trying to enforce its creationism and age of the earth interpretations of their bible that it offers
no defense of its value system. In fact it will allow no non-religious defense of its value system.
Our culture has been decreed by the (socialist) academic elite to be a white man's culture (even the white women
have deserted) and the white man has been isolated by law and public condemnation from forming any kind of
collective resistance. And they should not be the only defenders.
The openly central intent of the education system is to destroy our mother culture and to replace it with socialist
ideology. If not so pitiful, it would be amusing; since the first thing that a socialist government does when it
comes into power is purge the academic elite.
Current Cultural Basis

Intelligent thought is of three parts: 1) the selection of one or more premises, 2) followed by one or more
successive steps of evaluation of those premises in various forms and proportions and in various ways, and 3) the
statement of one or more conclusions. Since the human intellect is a biological mechanism, it is not perfect in
any of its functions. It may accept inputs and the knowledge received thereby may be near truth, but it can never
be better than truth and in fact must always be less than truth. There is nothing magical or spiritual about the
human neural system. It processes and acts on information. It cannot create anything. It may process the
perceived truth into other forms but may not create knowledge during the process. Its data manipulation
may develop more useful combinations and permutations of the knowledge contained in the premises, but in
doing so there is always degradation in the process. It may quite accurately surmise the results of this
manipulation, and these new combinations may be very useful, but there will always be something lost in the
process. In short, the knowledge developed in the logical process never exceeds, and in fact must always be less
than, that contained in the original premises. The output of the process may be no closer to truth than the input.
Put another way: If the premises are faulty, the conclusions will also be at least as faulty. With computers, this is
called "garbage in, garbage out." In the case of culture, it is "dogma in, dogma out." No one, no matter the
genius, is able to create real knowledge from dogma. This is not to say that conclusions reached from reasoning
based on dogma are always false. Quite often truth is stumbled upon. But real knowledge may only be
dependably discovered by intelligent action when the reasoning is based on measured and proven premises. The
use of dogma as premises for reasoning is very dangerous, yet that very process is habitual with modern cultural
thinkers.
The premises used as a basis for the logic behind cultural rules in all of the cultures on earth are largely dogma.
Most are derivatives of ancient tribal cultures, developed through the ages by happenstance. Some one or group
wanted a certain rule in the culture, so they made up a reason and stuck it in. Many, in fact most, of these
premises may be shown to be in error. Most cultural rules in modern cultures are poor fits with the actual human
nature.
A culture may be viewed as a set of behavioral rules. As such it is restrictive of the individual in favor of the
community. The more rules and the more strictly the rules are enforced, the more restrictive the set of rules
become on the individual and the more uniform the social environment becomes for the community. Too few
rules, or lack of enforcement, leads to an uncomfortable, even unsafe, culture. Too many rules, or excessively
severe enforcement, leads to regimentation and unbearable loss of personal freedom.
All social drives are instinctive, based on small tribal groups and formed long before intellectual man arrived.
The survival advantage of intellect is its control over the instincts to provide more suitable behavior. A culture is
largely an intellectual set of rules established to provide a uniform set of behaviors from a community with
widely differing instincts. If the human was uniform in his instincts, the line between the two excesses would be
simple to determine and the set of cultural rules would rest in the same way on each individual. Such is not the
case. The human species is in a state of evolutionary degeneration. (See The Degeneration of Man) It is widely
divergent in physical shape, mental ability, and instinct. This divergence is increasing. No set of behavioral rules
will ever be satisfactory to everyone. No severity of enforcement will ever be acceptable to everyone. Both will
be less acceptable to more and more individuals with time due to the evolutionary degeneration.
The range (divergence) of social behavior of the human is remarkable. Child molestation, murder, incest, and
theft are quite common. Terrorism, drive by shootings and other violent behavior are now everyday worries.
Parental care of children ranges from spoiling the kid rotten to beating him half to death every day.
Homosexuality has become so common that it is now considered normal behavior. These are all valid factors in a
culture.
The chart below illustrates the spectrum of the conflicting cultural basis now in the US. This same chart at the
time of the founding of the US would have been solidly blue and there were no interests trying to influence a
change. It was 100% dogma at that time, mostly based on religious dogma.
The Basis for Culture in the US
The conservative and liberal influences on the basis of our culture are now about even in magnitude. There are
two active groups pressing for the liberalization of the culture and two others active in pressing for a
conservative culture.
The Conservative View of Culture
The conservative seeks to maximize the fulfillment of all of the individuals in a community by providing
emphasis on the community rather than the individual. It also seeks cultural stability. The conservative seeks a
comprehensive set of cultural rules and strict adherence to those rules. Since excessive rules and enforcement are
disruptive factors in the community, the true conservative is as much concerned with diminishing those factors as
is the liberal.
The Liberal View of Culture
The liberal emphasis is on the individual rather than the community and seeks rapid cultural change. A liberal
culture is one that seeks as few rules as possible and to allow the widest possible variation in individual
performance of those rules. The emphasis is on the individual rather than the community, even at the expense of
the community.
Liberalism was begun as a movement toward modernizing culture through use of the latest knowledge and
thinking. Once having established a basis for their movement (socialism) and the mechanisms for enforcing the
change (politics and education), however, liberalism became reactionary and is now the greatest obstacle for the
application of real knowledge to our culture. Once the revolution was successful, its dogma was solidified.
It is interesting to note that the structures of liberalism and socialism are at odds. One seeks individual freedom
while the other requires complete control, even to thought. One seeks democracy, the other says it does but its
political structure denies it. One seeks the rights of the individual, the other denies the rights of the individual.
Religious Dogma
Religious cultural dogma describes a workable and conservative culture. Dogma it is, and flaws it may have, but
at the least it is the distilled social wisdom of thousands upon thousands of humans, over a written history period
of thousands of years. Its social value system should not be discarded lightly. The major problem with religious
dogma in the modern world is its inflexibility and lack of reasonable cause. 'God says' is the basis for behavioral
rules and no other explanation is permitted. And if 'God says' then it must not be modified one iota.
Socialist Dogma
Socialism has no factual basis, claims no spiritual basis, has no record of success and in its present form is less
than two hundred years old (as compared with the Christian religion at several thousand years). The basic
premises of socialism are completely false. It assumes that the human is intellectually uniform and therefore in
the proper culture it will respond uniformly. It further assumes that the human is intelligent therefore cultural
drives may be modified through education. There is not one iota of truth in either of these statements and any
cultural system dependent on these two statements is as flawed. Socialism is also an intellectually dishonest
cultural dogma. It promises that which it cannot deliver and causes that which it denies. A multicultural classless
society is a contradiction in terms. A multiparty socialist democracy is also a contradiction. The idea of freedom
of choice in work with equal pay is total idiocy. Someone must clean the stables and few will endure long years
of preparation for a job that offers no reward for having done so.
A common theme between socialism and Christianity is that the meek will inherit the earth. Don't bet on it.
Aggressive leadership is another human social trait (instinct) with wide individual variation in strength. Two
million years of warrior/hunter tribal living made sure of it. Any workable culture must be designed with that in
mind and niches for that kind of people must be provided that use their energy in a manner beneficial to the
community. Free enterprise is the best system we've come up with so far.
Academic Elite
The human neural system is a biological mechanism that was designed by evolution, a process without reason or
purpose. The procedure was by trial and error, a haphazard means at best. Its development was for survival by
solving immediate problems presented by the environment. It is a marvelous mechanism for designing a rabbit
snare, driving an automobile and being sociable around the campfire in the evening. By nature it is reactive, not
intelligent. If kept under strict control under a set of rigid conditions and procedures it can emulate intelligence.
The instant that it strays away from provable premises and short lines of logic verified each step, however, its
product becomes quite suspect. The human intellect, if left to its own devices, is quite error prone socially. Read
the front page of any newspaper.
In an objective field, such as physics or chemistry, one may easily discard a direction which is not fruitful, since
there is no emotion involved in the process. It is real knowledge being sought, not the proving of a preconceived
idea. But the instant that any field, scientific or not, brushes up against social considerations, the human social
instincts bristle in defense. The probing for truth will have a violent collision with ancient neural circuitry.
That's why the human is so proficient in its technology and so utterly stupid in its culture. It's not that our cultural
thinkers have lost their ability to be objective, objectivity in such matters was never developed in the first place.
In fact there is a big movement now among the academic elite to become more subjective (more human, they put
it) in all routes of inquiry. "'Pure physics developed the atom bomb," they say, not considering two facts: 1) there
are peaceful uses for atomic power, and 2) it was the politicians who decree the use of the bomb and it is they
who need curtailment.
Einstein was a deep thinker. He was also an astute student of the thinking process. He pointed out another facet
of the human mind: "It is the theory which decides what we can observe," he declared.
One must have an idea of what he is looking for in order to find a successful direction in which to explore. This
insight into the human thinking mechanism is profound. That mechanism was developed as a problem solver
over a period of four million years from a good start with an animal that was quite successful, even at that time.
Translated into that viewpoint, what Einstein says is that to solve a problem, one must have a fairly good idea of
what the problem is.
If a scientist is steeped in a social ideology, then by nature he will tend to seek solutions to those problems that
he sees. It is not being dishonest. His thinking mechanism is tainted with dogma. The degree of poisoning may
be so severe that no amount of self-discipline can overcome it. Whether he intends to or not, the theory he
applies is influenced by his ideology and the inquiry will be aimed in that direction.
One cannot be a scientist today without being previously exposed. A few learn their trade in religious schools,
the rest in socialist/liberal atmospheres. One cannot be both a scientist, which requires an impartial and open
mind, and a social activist, which requires dedication to a political idea. The two are mutually exclusive. As long
as we stuff our young people's minds with ideological dogma through the formative years, they will always lean
heavily in the direction of that dogma the rest of their lives. The dogma has become a part of their tribal culture,
to be defended forever.
The future of our culture rests with the academic elite. This is the tribe on which our future depends. They
control the education system and provide our leaders in government, finance, law, media and education. What
this subculture believes today, will be our culture tomorrow. It is an extremely unfortunate state of affairs. Our
culture will be formed to fit the non-producers in our society and that element will grow at the expense of the
population as a whole. As they expand, the asset producing elements will shrink. The inevitable result, as with
any socialist country, will be economic collapse. We already have cities in the US where there are more workers
in the bureaucracy than in private employment. The producers must share equally that which they produce,
lowering their living standard for a given rate of production.
The individuals in this group are all highly political. A small number of them are conservative, but most are
aggressive in evangelizing a very strange mix of liberalism and socialism. Almost without exception, all are
aggressive, bigoted, intolerant, haughty, egocentric, cynical, defensive and arrogant. They will not listen to
anyone without identical credentials, therefore as steeped in the same dogma, and they manage to refuse
discourse with a sneer. They consider all who are not a member of their tribe as being somehow subhuman.
Real Knowledge
The application of real knowledge to human culture is always conservative, since it reflects the true relationship
between the human and the universe.
The human is a biological mechanism with strong social characteristics. Much is known about this mechanism.
Most of this knowledge is quite recent. Much of this knowledge denies current cultural dogma. There is little
application of this knowledge in our culture.
The basic 'science' for all cultural study is psychology. It establishes the behavioral characteristics of the human
on which all other cultural studies depend. With the exception of a few students of evolutionary psychology,
current psychologists are little more than witch doctors. With a misunderstanding of the nature of man, the basic
premises used in modern psychology are grossly in error. The dogma developed from those misconceptions is
heavily dosed and fully supportive of the academic elite ideological dogma. Modern psychologists are much
more a hinderance than help.
Resurrection?
It is doubtful that there is any possibility of the restoration of the Western Culture. Even our government is busily
carrying out its own destruction. It would probably require a very bloody civil war to settle the issues.
Even if we should develop the resolve and strength to halt our cultural degeneration and to undo the cultural
damage already suffered, should we reconstruct and reinstitute the Western Culture? Of course not! Though
productive and uniform it had a serious flaw. It was based on dogma, in the same manner that the force which is
destroying it is also based on dogma.
So mankind sits between the skillet and the fire. The culture which has been successful is based on dogma which
is inflexible and at cross purposes with so-necessary technological development. It is being replaced by a dogma
which has never shown success at any trial and which also severely limits technological development through
force-fitting scientific thought through an ideological filter. Both of these forces are inflexible in their stand. But
mankind needs an intellectual culture based on real knowledge, one which augments his strengths and allows for
his frailties, one which will allow mankind to reach its full stature. Neither of our two current cultural forces
would allow it.
Extensive forest fires often occur in the western mountains. These are often huge conflagrations, some extending
for many miles in all directions. The rugged terrain makes transportation extremely difficult. It would be
senseless to even think of placing fire fighters shoulder to shoulder around the perimeter in order to stop the
progress of the fire. There is another process which is much more sensible: fight fire with fire. Start a backfire.
Borrow a page from the liberal/socialist book and use education as the focal center.
The solution lies in education reform

Where reform means a complete shift in content, method and intent:
Allow only real knowledge to be taught in the schools. No fiction or dogma, directly or indirectly.
Teach cultural rules through training methods.
Allow no political or ideological massaging of the student's personality.
The primitive modern man in Australia, Borneo or South America has the same sensor and neural system as we,
therefore, age for age he has absorbed the same amount of 'knowledge'. Some of this information in both cases is
factual, and therefore useful. We call our real knowledge 'science' and most of it is factual. We, therefore, behave
in a manner which makes greater use of the assets of the real world for our benefit. Most of his 'knowledge' is
long term accumulations of conversational dogma. We call his dogma superstition and nonsense. Most of our
'knowledge' is long term accumulations of textual dogma, both written and oral. We call our dogma philosophy,
religion, ideology, literature, intellectual elitism, political correctness, postmodernism, and psychology. It,
therefore, should also be called superstition and nonsense. Think what would happen if we quit teaching and
using that modern nonsense and turned our effort to learning more, a lot more, real knowledge.
Man's real (provable, measurable) knowledge is quite extensive. Through astronomy and associated studies, he
has explored his relationship with the universe. Through physics and chemistry he has studied the properties and
relationships of the very matter of which the universe is constructed. Through biology and associated studies he
has described the variety of flora and fauna on earth and learned the relationships between the various forms of
living things. Microbiology is now mapping the human genome and is experimenting with genetic manipulation.
Admittedly, man does not know everything yet, and may never, but for his physical relationships with the
universe he has established systems of inquiry, methods of approach, and standards for knowledge acceptance.
How can this be applied to our culture in order to correct both the original errors and those now being
introduced? Go back to the original concept of education when religion was barred from the schools: teach
real knowledge in the schools and let the families and other private organizations handle the dogma if they so
wish.
Do teach our young people where they fit in this universe. Give them enough real knowledge so that they
can feel comfortable going forth to provide for themselves. Let them be knowledgeable about their
environment. Provide them with enough technical knowledge so they can fit in an ever-increasingly
technical world. Teach them facts, not what to think or feel. They have neural systems as capable as yours
for deciding how to use those facts. Teach them to be skeptical of all dogma, regardless of source. It
wouldn't hurt to teach them to also be a little suspicious even of the so-called real knowledge.
Do not psychoanalyze or provide therapy, use doctors. Do not use the school for political change, hire a
hall. Do not provide recreational facilities, provide separate sports centers. Do not teach fiction, there is
too much real information available. That means no sports, art, drama, fictional literature or philosophy
based on dogma. Not that these are bad things, they are certainly worthy, but they do not come under the
heading of education. If they are deemed necessary, build the institutions to service those needs separately.
Make it a capital crime, punishable by death, for any teacher who seeks to distort young minds with his
private dogma, no matter how noble the intent. Perhaps burning at the stake in the public square would be
fitting.
A new and stable intellectual culture would form within a few generations. Teachers trained within this education
system would pride themselves on how well and truthfully they can transfer real knowledge Students would
pride themselves on how much they can learn. Graduates would pride themselves on how well they can apply
their knowledge within the framework of their culture.
Comments by readers and discussion

Comment:
This is a different view of culture from any I had considered. I certainly agree that there are such flexible
instincts leading to shared species-typical social behaviors -- even a hatchling learning bird song requires
the exposure to particular songs in order to settle on a particular "dialect". But I'm not sure we want to
call this 'culture'. Normally, I think, we take culture to be shared abstractions and symbols -- a common
collection of memes, in Dawkins' terms. That said, I see no reason in principle to reject your view just
because it's broader than the one we normally use. It has the advantage of pointing out that such flexibility
is not exclusively the domain of the neocortex, but exists to some extent in many (most?) of our brain's
modules. The biggest problem is that people don't like to have their vocabulary redefined for them
without compelling reason -- so it may be hard to sell folks on this view.

Answer:
Man is a biological survival mechanism. The ultimate goal of observing, learning, remembering, considering,
and making decisions is doing something (behavior) for the purpose of existence enhancement. The neural
mechanisms for manipulating abstractions and symbols are genetically fixed. The sensor mechanisms for
obtaining information about the universe are genetically fixed. The memory mechanisms used for storing the
information received through the sensors are genetically fixed. The drive which causes the human to want to
think and to act (the joining of these mechanisms) is genetically fixed. Each of these statements is true since in
each case the function is universal in the species and not dependent in function on experience.
If this is true then there is no distinction that I can see in human behavior between how he reacts to cultural rules
(laws, edicts, practices, etc.) and how he reacts to his peers and training in playing his be-bop. That early cave
dweller who left that hand print on the cave wall had enough venison stored farther back in that cave to last his
family a week and enough time left over to mark the cave with his hand print. The behavioral differences
between killing that deer and painting the handprint was a matter of time, place and social environment. The
same identical mechanism and knowledge base produced both responses. He may not have used all that he knew
in shaping his behavior in each case but he used the same body of information. If you've ever heard a tune in
your mind while changing the spark plugs on your car, you understand what I mean. Everything you know colors
everything you do.
Following comments copied from The Curriculum
Why are you against the arts and sports in school? These have been traditional parts of education for
centuries.
I think arts and sports are wonderful. I think they should be encouraged in every child. Every community should
have a community center where such things are nurtured. But right now we have an educational crisis and a
cultural crises. We need to take every nickel of our public money and invest it in an education for every child in
our country. We need to make sure that every minute that we teach them, it is provable knowledge, there isn't
time for anything else. In olden days they had to fill the student's time with something, all of the earth's
knowledge was a one semester course. Not now! These students are now leaving high school destitute of
knowledge. They need to learn things that are useful, not how to shoot a basket or play rap music. Anything that
detracts or distracts must be removed from the schools.
I can't believe that you'd want to eliminate philosophy and literature from the schools.
Any of it that's fiction, you can bet I do. And if I could shut down television and comic books, I'd do it in a
minute. I'd like to ask you how much philosophy and literature the modern high school graduate knows now!
Talk to one of them and you'll see that I'm not asking you to eliminate much. But I am asking you to give these
young people a fighting chance in a world suddenly complex, with too much real knowledge to ever cover in a
lifetime, much less in preparatory school.
You seem to take a radical empiricist position that nothing is real unless scientifically provable.
Not at all, there is a lot of truth in the dogma now being taught as knowledge in our schools. Collective man
tends to be wise. The problem is that the dogma contains both truth and falsehood and there is no way to
determine which parts are true and which are false. From the cultural result of what we teach, one must assume
that those parts which are false are also quite damaging.
However, there is more provable knowledge available than we can hope to cover in a lifetime and the amount is
growing daily. So why not end the dogma, both religious and ideological, and start fresh on a firmer foundation
to seek the real truth?
It will mean starting all over in such fields as psychology and strengthening the fields of subjects such as
anthropology, but a lot of subject matter is archaic and will not fit in education for an intellectual culture.
The education you propose sounds very sterile and one dimensional, and is unlikely to gain many
adherents unless you modify your position regarding the teaching of the arts, the humanities, literature,
etc., which are essential components for educating the "whole" person.
How good are those "whole" people that you are turning out today? What are they good for? If they can't make
their own way, what good is literature, art and humanities to them? The drop-out rate of today is extremely high,
in spite of coddling. Why? Because they see no value in what they are being taught. Make education meaningful
to them and they couldn't be run off with a baseball bat.
You speak of art, humanities and literature. Have you looked at any of the pictures from the Hubble? From the
shuttle? When you look at a swelling cumulus, do you feel the dynamics in your heart? Have you seen the layout
art for the Pentium? Do you understand what causes the ocean tide? Or why it rises under a hurricane? Do you
look at a rock and feel its history in the earth? Do you know why mothers love their babies? Do you look at the
sky on a dark night and understand what you see? Do you feel the majesty of the universe and the joy in being
allowed a part in it? The beauty of this universe is limited only by our ability to learn and comprehend.
For some incredible reason it has become fashionable in our culture to consider anyone working with scientific
knowledge to be some sort of half-animal, incapable of the "good" passions of man. Somehow a man becomes
less of a man if he doesn't swoon over rap music, pot and some idiot's graffiti on a piece of canvas. I like the
artistry of all man, but only art which requires skill, training, and dedication. When I see skill and knowledge in
an artifact, I marvel at man's capability whether in a Rembrandt (a work by one man) or the impeller system in a
modern jet engine (a polished masterpiece of precision surfaces in shining metal and the product of the
cooperative creativity of thousands).
The result of what you propose would be a society like that portrayed in Fritz Lang's 1920's classic movie,
"Metropolis." You ought to see it sometime. It portrays a society of heartless robots tending to the
machines which are owned by the 'masters' of the society.
People ignorant in science, such as those who made this movie and who believe its message, have always
maintained that science is a vampire sucking the blood of humanity. Somehow if knowledge comes from science
it is not fit for the "civilized" man. If a deliberately destructive malcontent (such as Marx) mouths nonsense, he is
somehow sanctified and followed.

Real knowledge takes effort to learn. One cannot learn it by merely reading a book. Many fear that they are
incapable of learning it. These often seek other fields that do not require as much time and effort. They then
justify their path as the "whole" education, or the "civilized" education. It always pained me to see the effete man
wringing his hands in mock agony and giggling, "but I just can't understand calculus." It's far easier to deny,
deride and demonize than to perform.
Let's review the place of art, sculpture, literature and music in education. There is little evidence in the 4.5
million years of man's development that any of these flowered before the advent of Homo sapiens sapiens,
somewhat less than two hundred thousand years ago.
1. Art started with graffiti on the walls of caves. The outline of a hand traced in charcoal from an ancient fire is
classical. Art probably lived through the ages as decorations on clothing, tools and weapons. Fine paintings came
within the last few hundred years, when the materials became available (developed by scientists). These required
great skill and experience with the materials in addition to the creativity in the artist.
Feces on a dinner plate, the American flag in a toilet, a crucifix submerged in a glass of urine are all now
considered fine art by those who are "civilized." Oddly these perversions of art, all deliberately offensive to large
cultural groups, are defended by men who claim the high ground on lacking bigotry and insist that they are the
only ones who are sensitive and tolerant of others.
Meanwhile scientific artists design wondrous electronic and mechanical machines that allow all man to travel
easier, see farther into space, enjoy wide communications with each other, grow copious food supplies, and live
longer with better medical care. But because their art produces useful things, it is no longer art.
2. Ancient man saw the rock and carved from it an image of himself. Within the last 3000 or so years he uses
marble and granite to carve wondrous likenesses. He used bronze foundries to make huge works of art.
The sculptor of today builds from tin, iron, toilets, and stacks of old automobiles. He prides himself on crude
welding and finish. His mechanicals rarely work well. He is also considered by the "civilized" man to be an
artist.
Meanwhile scientific sculptors refine the minerals from the ground, shape them with skill, talent and knowledge
and build one of the most magnificent works of art the world has ever seen. It's called the shuttle.
Somehow the modern "sophisticated" man feels that art, no matter the skill and talent required for its production,
or its finished beauty, is somehow distasteful if it also renders service. This is intellectual perversion at its worst.
3. Literature started with stories around the campfires. Such knowledge as they had, or thought they had in those
days, was passed down from generation to generation from memory to memory, usually in the form of stories or
chants. Religion and philosophy were also transmitted in the same way.
Modern literature is no more than an expansion of this ancient practice, but now in print or on a floppy disk. Man
learns from his input, reading being one of the best input methods. The various forms of literature are interesting
to read but an extremely poor way to gain knowledge. Fiction and philosophy should be avoided since any
knowledge gained thereby is highly questionable. Literature makes good intellectual recreational material, as
long as the reader is careful to discount what he reads.
4. Music began as evening entertainment around the campfire. Sometimes it was used as a background for
chants. It hasn't really changed much since. It reached its peak in artistry a century ago. The dynamic and pitch
ranges of the orchestras of that period filled the entire sound spectrum that man can encompass. The utilization of
harmonics and variable cadence produced rich and interesting sound.
By contrast, modern music is monotone, fixed cadence and loud. Rap is a throwback, surely dating to pre-erectus
times. Still, the "whole" modern man considers it art. And most modern music is synthetic, produced on
machines designed by science.
There is much more to education than the understandings and skills necessary to perform on the job.
You are absolutely right. Education needs to cover far more than the essentials of existing. Only when man
understands the universe and where and how he fits in it will he ever feel at ease and confident as he approaches
life. We disagree only in content.
Culture and the Quail
Culture and the Gambel's Quail

Callipepla Gambelii
"click here for larger image"
A culture is the collective social behavior of a group. The process of evolution combines the survival affects of
form and behavior in making its decision on whether a species will survive or disappear. Species under great
stress have high death rates, short lives and small populations. The evolutionary process works best under such
conditions. The individual with the slightest imperfection is discarded immediately. Due to the small population,
the mutation which offers the slightest help spreads quickly throughout the species. Often, in nature, a better
behavior pattern, dictated by fixed instinct, is used to offset a physical impediment. Such is the case in man. Such
is the case in the Gambel's quail, a delightful and lovable little creature.
We live in the foothills of the Catalina mountains, near Tucson, Arizona, on almost an acre of high desert
vegetation. Our land is covered with prickly pear, barrel cactus, teddy bear cholla; creosote and sage bushes, palo
verde, catsclaw, mesquite; and even two large magnificent sahuaros, one of which has been here more than a
hundred and fifty years longer than we. It is habitat for many species of desert bird and animal life. We've
learned to love them all. It's dry country so we provide two watering holes for all of them, one in our front yard
and another in the back. We have no fences. The wildlife traffic is heavy, day and night. In addition to the birds
and the little critters, many exotic animals take advantage, especially during a long dry spell. Javelina come for a
drink of water and pause at the back door, looking for a handout (usually successful). Coyotes come during the
night. The neighbors cats stake the area out looking for an unwary bird. An occasional bobcat wanders through
and stops for a sip. Roadrunners come by. Out of sympathy for the others, we don't feed the predators (although
deeply tempted, since they are beautiful also, in their own way).
My computer and writing desk overlooks a sheltered part of our front yard and one of the watering holes through
a large window. By keeping the background light low and the blinds partially closed, I am able to observe the
ebb and flow of the animal and bird traffic without their knowledge. My production often drops to zero, as I
become enthralled with the activity.
We also feed the birds and the benign little creatures in our backyard. We took their habitat and we feel we owe
them. Among the birds we feed are two species that provide a miniature example of evolutionary divergence in
the manner of Ramapithecus and Ramidus. On the one hand is the mourning dove. Although well adapted to the
file:///C|/onelifebook/psy/quail.html (1 of 6)1/25/2007 4:51:14 PM
ground (it walks instead of hopping), the dove is still very much an air and tree bird. It flies beautifully, and it
roosts and nests in the trees. On the other hand is the Gambel's quail. It is strictly a ground bird. It can run like
blazes, but it is a miserable flier, and it roosts and nests on the ground. The two species are about the same size
and they share the same food supply (primarily seeds and young leaf sprouts). Both species survive quite well,
but in very different cultural ways.
Ramapithecus, ancestor of the modern apes, was a deep forest animal. He had hands and arms on all four
corners. He could climb a tree faster than any big cat. No cat could match his agility in the trees. He nested in the
trees at night, and was rarely exposed on the ground since most of his food was also in the trees. He, in essence,
had copious food and little predation. About the same time (about four million years ago) that Ramapithecus
lived in the trees, the walking ape,Ramidus, ancestor of modern man, lived on the forest floor and at its edges.
He had only two hands and arms. On the other end he had legs and feet. Feet can't grab branches, and legs are too
straight and stiff for climbing. A two-legged animal can't run as fast as one with four legs. And the cats were
much larger. There wasn't a big cat around that couldn't outrun Ramidus on the ground, or overtake him in the
lowest branches of a tree. The pregnant women and small children were especially vulnerable to predators.
Since they did not live in great danger, Ramapithecus and his descendants (chimp, orangutan and gorilla) had
little need for extensive cultures (complex and fixed sets of behaviors). And they didn't develop them. Ramidus
and his descendants, on the other hand, badly needed group effort to make up for their deficiencies, in order to
survive. They were very strong and of good size, about four feet tall and fifty pounds. They also still had the apelike teeth and strong claws on their hands, but, individually, they were no match for the ancient panther or lion.
Their attrition rate must have been terrible until evolution started providing a stronger and stronger instinct for
group effort. A tribe that cooperated in defense could survive. The individual could not. A tribe requires
extensive social development. A cooperative culture was born in man.
The mourning dove can escape any ground predator by taking to the air. It's nests are off the ground, offering
protection to the chicks and eggs. It roosts in the trees, away from the ground predators. We have a big red-tailed
hawk in the neighborhood who preys often on them during the day. There is no conceivable cultural protection
that would help that problem. No matter how many doves should cooperate in defense, it would still be hopeless.
Group defense effort did not develop. The dove offsets the attrition with multiple broods each year. Since it
needs no culture, it has none. It mates often and seemingly all year round. It does not pair off. During a mating
orgy it is not uncommon to see several birds in a pile. They are such wonderful fliers that coupled with a high
birthrate, they don't need a lot of intelligence. They don't have much. And not very good reaction times either.
No matter, they have more chicks to offset the losses.
The Gambel's quail is a very different story. It has some terrible survival problems and has developed an intricate
and exquisite culture to cope.
First of all, seasonal weather effects the quail much more than the dove. The dove thinks nothing of moving to a
new area thirty or fifty miles away to compensate for a local dry spell. The quail, due to his very limited flying
ability, lives in a very small area, perhaps only a few hundred yards square, all of his life. He must endure
whatever happens to him there (see why we feed them? We took their home.) Our area is dry to start with, and
droughts are common. A most remarkable cultural compensation is made by the quail. If there is a dry winter and
spring, few quail will nest and the broods will be small. 1996, for example, was a dry year. We feed perhaps a
hundred pair, but we saw less than a dozen broods and the largest was five chicks. The year before was a wet
spring, resulting in a good food supply. Every quail pair nested. There were chicks everywhere and several
broods of a dozen or more. They adjust the chick crop each year to fit the expected food supply. A University of
Berkeley study of a fixed and isolated habitat (Santa Cruz Island) came to the conclusion that the current adult
population also effected chick production - when the population was low, chick production was high and when
an area was over-populated, the chick production was low. The human should be so smart.
Pairing occurs in late winter and the Gambel's quail is definitely and completely monogamous. They are
inseparable. There is no attempt by either to stray from the other. If a male is seen, the female will be close by.
Once they pair, neither will ever willingly allow the other out of sight. As they forage, they will change spatial
relationships often, but usually the male leads and the female follows. As long as there are no chicks involved,
the pairs are quite sociable, gathering together with other pairs to forage in even-numbered groups. All of them
pair. Singles are very rare, and then only as a result of disaster.
Roosting time is social time. Organizing the sleeping arrangements is apparently quite a chore. There is incessant
chatter and movement for about twenty minutes each evening. When they do not have chicks, several pairs will
roost together in a circle. With tails together and noses pointing outward they will explode in all directions if
attacked by a predator. Their main predator at night is the coyote. The coyote usually hunts alone. When he
flushes a covey, he will select a bird and run along under it until it comes down. Quail cannot fly far and they are
very noisy when they fly. They are easily followed and they get tired quickly. If they come down in the open, it's
the end. If they are lucky they will come down in shelter, such as a catsclaw tree or a big prickly pear. Every
coyote within ten miles knows that we feed quail, and that there are many nearby. The quail have a rough time
almost every night. If the moon is full, I doubt if they get any sleep at all.
As the predators move through the area, scaring up group after group of quail, many pairs get separated. Quail
don't care much to get off the ground. Except when leaves are young and tender, a quail will rarely climb a tree.
When they are separated during the night though, they have a ritual for rejoining. The male will return to the
roosting area the next morning and fly to the top of the highest plant or structure nearby. There he gives his
'where are you?' call, over and over. He thereby exposes himself to great danger and his calls will alert any
nearby predator, such as that red-tailed hawk overhead. He will not stop until his mate returns, even if he is near
the feeding grounds at feeding time. The female returns to the roosting area also, but she makes no sound. This is
training for later when she has chicks that she must not endanger on the way back to her mate, and it protects her
from blindly running into a predator who is stalking her mate. All ends well most of the time. Most of the calling
ends by an hour or so after sunup. They have all been reunited. Sometimes, though, there has been disaster. The
male will then call his mate for weeks. He will come down in late evening for food and sleep, but early the next
morning he is back on duty, calling her. What happens when it's the male who is eaten? We have no idea. The
hen makes no sound while she searches, but surely she does, for a like time.
As much of a disaster as losing a mate is, that is not the end of it. There are social implications, also. If a male
loses his mate, he becomes an outcast. If he tries to approach any other pair, he will be immediately chased away
by the paired male. When we feed them, the quail couples will mingle while eating, but the widower will be
constantly chased away. We have tried to feed them separately, but it appears to be the companionship that they
seek, which is then denied. It is not known if the widowed hen is also rejected in a like manner. If so, it is a more
subtle rejection.
Nesting begins in early spring. The mating pair selects a nesting territory, which they will then defend from other
quail. Nesting is on the ground, usually in a protected area under a bush or cactus. They then mate and produce
the desired number of eggs, usually about a dozen. Incubation occurs only after the full number of eggs has been
produced. All of the chicks hatch at once.

The eggs are vulnerable to ground predators. If a snake finds a nest, it will move in and live off the eggs until
they are all gone. Roadrunners and crows rob nests. A hungry coyote will not hesitate to enjoy an egg meal. If
they lose a nest, the quail pair will look for a new territory and try again.
When the chicks hatch, they have the most attentive and devoted parents that nature has ever provided. Neither
parent will ever willingly let them out of their sight until they are grown and ready to pair. The day they hatch,
seemingly, the family leaves the nest and the parents begin training the chicks on how to forage. Freshly hatched
chicks can run almost as fast as their parents. Their little legs move so fast they can't be seen, making them
appear to be low-flying wingless beetles. The family forages with the male leading the brood, while the female
follows as rear guard. Although inquisitive and adventurous, the chicks are very obedient. On command from
either parent, they will instantly squat motionless or run under the nearest prickly pear.
Quail are very territorial when they have a brood. The males will chase other quail and other broods off to ensure
food for their own chicks. The females rarely get into these territorial disputes, it's a job for the male. It is sheer
bedlam when we feed quail during brooding time. The males are all squared off fighting each other (no one ever
gets hurt) while the females quietly herd their chicks around the fisticuffs and continue feeding along with them.
If a quail family is foraging and runs into another quail family, the males will fight for the foraging area. These
fights are more ceremonial than real. The two males stretch upright and bump each other around with their
chests. They threaten with their beaks, but the blow never lands. The strongest male will prevail and gets the area
for his family. If a quail family is foraging and runs into a childless pair, a single gesture by the father is all that
is required. The childless couple will quietly give up the area to the family and as quietly move away.
If a predator attacks the family, the chicks hide or run for cover and the parents try to entice the predator to chase
the parents, deliberately exposing themselves to danger. Often they lose the game and are killed or maimed. If at
all able they will continue to do their duty. We had a brood of four in 1996 that was led by a male with one leg.
For a creature that was totally dependent on his legs it was a pitiful sight. He insisted, though, and led his group
foraging, hopping clumsily on one leg, and was successful in raising all four. With only the one leg to shove off
with, he could not take flight very well. He must have remained alive by sheer will-power until his chicks were
grown, for he disappeared shortly after. No quail lives to a ripe old age.
The predators are relentless. As the season moves on through summer, the broods get smaller and more and more
broods are being tended by only one parent. If a mate is lost, the other carries on the best it can. If a male loses
his mate and she has the chicks, he will climb up high and call her; but, if he has the chicks, he swallows his
pain. The care of the chicks comes first and his mate, if alive, must find him on her own. There is no time for
climbing up high and calling her.
The quail family stays together even when the chicks are mature. By fall the only way the parents can be
distinguished from their chicks is by knowing that the first in line is father and the last is mother. The newly
matured chick is never single. He is a child of one family until he pairs to start another.
The quail pair share in everything. They are diligent, caring, responsible, courageous, loyal, dutiful, faithful,
brave, resilient, tenacious, sharing, and dedicated. For you younger folks in public school, this is called a value
system and it's what they are trying to erase from you. For you older people, this is a description of character,
that which no longer matters in our culture.

So nature provides many paths for a species to survive. Some will offset losses with high birth rates. Some
become fleet of foot or wing. Some use offsetting cultural behaviors. Ramidus was one of those, as is the
Gambel's quail. Some claim that dimorphism and aggressive males indicate a society in which the male
dominates the female and tends to gather females while fighting off other males. If true, quail are an exception.
Quail have these characteristics and are totally monogamous, sharing the burdens of life equally and together as a
pair.
The unit of quail life culture is the bonded pair, not the individual male or female.
They are devoted to each other. When they nest and brood they are devoted to their chicks. They are brave,
resilient, persistent and courageous. They are energetic from dawn to dark. They are social and follow their
social rules without exception. They adjust their population to fit their environment. They are aggressive as a
ritual, but shed no blood. With a brain the size of the tip of your little finger, they have a culture for all man to
envy. They are only instinctive, you say? So are you, my friend. So are you. The only difference we have is a
couple of expanded terms in our instinctive decision mechanisms, theirs plus a couple more. It seems doubtful, at
the moment, that we gained as a result.
WHAT ARE THE LESSONS?
1. As with the quail, an instinctive cultural element essential for human species survival throughout the eras of
Ramidus, Africanus, Aferensis, Habilis, Erectus, Archaic and primitive Sapiens was the bonded pair.
2. With the growth of intellectual capability over the overall period of human development, and its resultant
societal control (sexual behavior being the primary one), two evolutionary factors were placed in opposition,
intellectual discipline and raw instinct. After millions of years of painful development of the intellect and its
consequent cultural discipline, man is now moving away from cultural discipline toward satisfying his instincts.
An animal needs no intellect (or culture) if it is instinctive. Evolution diminishes unused functions. In time, no
one will mind the species degeneration. Soon thereafter, we join the dinosaur.
3. During the past fifty years, after almost five million years of human culture based on the bonded heterosexual
pair, modern man is attempting to establish the basic unit of the human culture as the individual. It is attempting
to eradicate the couple in favor of the individual and establishing man and woman as interchangeable in function,
sex and culture.
4. An industrious, caring and cooperative society doesn't require a big brain. The basic elements and drives of
such a culture are instinctive. We should be ashamed that with all our abilities we have allowed and do allow the
degeneration of our culture. Indeed, it is becoming apparent that our public school system intends to eradicate
every vestige of our cultural heritage.
5. When we study the chimp in trying to learn more about ourselves and our cultural inclinations, we study the
wrong animal. He may be near us physically but not culturally. Industrious, caring and cooperative cultures are
developed only in answer to severe environmental stress, where there is a harsh mismatch between the capability
of the species and the environment it finds itself in. The chimp lineage has always had it easy. It lives out of
reach of any predators that are larger, stronger and more vicious than it is. It lives in an environment where it is
well adapted for food. Without environmental stress it has never had need for more than the most primitive of
cultures - and evolution does not provide features that are not required. The quail is far closer to our cultural
heritage than the chimp, since it suffers the same severe mismatch that ancient man faced. Its cultural solution
was much the same. A broadened search should uncover more, even closer, examples.
6. Now that we know the elements of an ideal culture, and, supposedly, we are intelligent, why don't we institute
such cultural requirements on ourselves? We intellectually see the need for certain behaviors in our culture, the
very same ones that we, and the quail, developed from necessity. Yet we deny them. In the guise of seeking
personal freedom, we deny the very cultural disciplines that would allow it.
Education Foreword
Education Foreword
A Little History:
Man has been a tribal animal since he first walked erect, more than four million years ago. With the impediment
of being bipedal, he could not out climb or outrun his predators. Only through tribal cooperation could he hold
his predators at bay. A tribe requires social structure. All of man's social drives developed long before he
developed intellectually. They are, therefore, instinctive. Intelligence (the ability to evaluate alternatives)
developed as a control over instincts to provide adaptable behavior. During the last two million years man was a
hunter/warrior. He still is. Only his culture, working through his intelligence, provides social stability. Since his
social drives are instinctive (not intellectual), they can not be modified through education. As with all other
higher order animals, he may be trained in behavior. Unlike the others, his intellect can be educated. That
education can be factual. He can also be taught garbage.
For all but the last few thousand years, man lived in small groups where culture and government were personal.
Compassion, cooperation, and sharing within these small groups, usually extended families, was instinctive. As
nature was conquered with tools, clothing, shelter and the eating of meat, the human population began to rapidly
grow. Larger tribes began to form and cultural problems began to multiply. The two million year era of nomadic
hunter-gatherer tribes came to a close when man turned to agriculture. Huge, by comparison, gatherings of
humans began to form. It became necessary to establish rules of behavior. The first large group cultures began to
form along with the overlying governing organizations.
A human is an instinctive being. The human developed intelligence as a means of directing and controlling
instincts to enhance species survival. Driven by his instincts, his behavior is controlled by his intellect. It is the
intellectual control of instincts that sets the human apart from other species. Man is human to the extent that he
establishes behavioral rules (morals, values, ethics) and then lives within those rules. He is less human if his
rules are few, lax or often ignored. He then becomes no better than any other instinctual animal. Man is also
inquisitive and energetic. He seeks knowledge and he seeks to build things. Deprive man of the opportunity to
freely do these things and his quality of life suffers.
A culture consists of a set of behavioral rules, agreed to by the community, for the establishment of a predictable
environment in which to live, raise a family, work and enjoy the fellowship of community. A culture is valuable
to the extent that the it enhances the quality of life of its members. Man becomes primitive in a culture with no
rules and/or poor enforcement. Since a culture is a learned function (though required and driven by instinct) the
culture must be taught. Since objective knowledge is needed for cultural (community) progress and for individual
fulfillment, teaching such knowledge is required.
With the family method of schooling, children were limited to the knowledge of their parents. As the human
knowledge base grew, a means of educating all children became necessary. The first schools catered only to the
children of the royalty and wealthy. When the printed word became affordable, it was time to educate all
file:///C|/onelifebook/edu/edintro.html (1 of 8)1/25/2007 4:51:15 PM
Education Foreword
children, not just the privileged. The public school was invented.
The Purpose of Education

The purpose of an education system for our children is to:
1. teach our children real knowledge about the real world,
2. maintain our culture by uniformly teaching our children its detail, and
3. train our children by insisting on proper behavior.
It is not within the jurisdiction of our schools to:
1. attempt psychological change in our children,
2. teach our children a new ideology
The original intent of public schooling was the preservation and advancement of our culture. That intent
has become perverted. We wanted all children to have progress toward an important role in our society, to
become a real contribution. Our education system has instead subverted our future. It seeks not to
improve our children but to retrain them so they will be willing pawns in the ideological battle ahead.
Our Current Condition:

Our education system is in shambles. Leaders from both political parties recently announced: "We have high
school graduates who can't read their own diplomas." It is frightening when even opposing politicians agree that
we have an education problem. The problem also exists on higher levels: A recently elected US senator, a
university graduate, could not locate Bosnia on a world globe, and, in fact, refused on camera even to indicate the
continent. With men like these in charge, the cause of the cultural, economic and political bedlam in our country
is quite easy to understand.
The good news is that the public is becoming quite upset about the education system. The bad news is that things
are far worse than they realize.
Pick up any metropolitan newspaper and read the help-wanted ads. Pages upon pages, listing job after job, cry
out for capable workers. Now turn to the front page and read about high unemployment rates, reaching 25% for
some young minorities, mounting costs of welfare, unemployed and by that uninsured people needing medical
attention, and billions spent on food stamps and subsidized housing. There are cries for raising the minimum
wage level so that families can exist, when families should not have been formed based on entry level wages.
Others cry out for more jobs for the ignorant who refuse to learn. In a high tech world, the high drop out rates
from schools are an indicator of something terribly wrong. The burgeoning prison population testifies to our
error.
The current struggle between the dogmas of the religious, the special interest groups such as the homosexual,
feminist and racial groups, and the spreading liberal, socialist, Marxist movement, rips our overall culture apart.
We barred the dogmas of the religions from our schools. That was a very smart move. Yet it removed any
opposition voice to counter the activity of these new cults. That tilted the playing field sharply to the left. With
no voice in opposition, all of the leftist cults are now dominant in our schools. Our schools become little better
than indoctrination camps. A few generations being unopposed has resulted in the domination by these
movements of the educational system, the governmental bureaucracy and the news media, all by people trained
Education Foreword
in leftist camps. We were smart enough to bar the religions from our schools, and that saved us a real mess.
Tilting the field back to the middle by reintroducing religions to the school would be disastrous. Still, we need a
level field in the school. Let us now get a lot smarter and bar all the rest of the dogmas from the school also. We
need schools that are free of social, ideological and cultural bias and bigotry.
So what is it that needs changing in our educational system? Public education today consists of five functions (1)
the very barest amount of subject matter; (2) huge portions of social, political and cultural indoctrination, redress
and correction; (3) some remedial and corrective teaching, (4) much student entertainment, and (5) baby-sitting
services for the community.
Spend a few days in any middle school in America and come away as confused as those who run it. It is a chaotic
hodgepodge. A school play is being put together. There are art and music programs. Cheerleaders are practicing
on the lawn, while the basketball team practices in the gym. The athletic coach is the highest paid faculty
member. Lines of buses are taking students on fun field trips. Scores of private clubs are meeting, their members
scurrying from place to place. Metal detectors sort out the knives and guns. Teachers are being attacked by
students. Classrooms are noisy. Students are disrespectful and destructive. Rest-rooms reek of pot. Promotions
are automatic. Half the students are sexually addicted. Many girls are pregnant. Teachers are expected to be
teachers, counselors, psychologists, body guards, and baby-sitters. Survival is uppermost in their minds. No one
should ever be expected to handle this kind of stress. Academic excellence is the farthest thing from the minds of
either teachers or students. It is no wonder that the students do not learn anything and the teachers suffer early
burnout.
Are the educators bad people? Not on your life. These are dedicated and sincere people. They have the utmost
compassion for their fellow human beings. They entered teaching in the hopes of making a contribution to all
mankind. They strive mightily to pass on to their students that which they believe. Are they ignorant? Not on
your life. These are intelligent people who have learned their lessons well. What they teach, and believe, is what
they were taught. Unfortunately, all they were taught is baseless dogma, and it is destructively wrong.
How can this be? What went wrong? We have excellent and dedicated teachers. We have an extremely
expensive school system. Yet an unacceptably large portion of the product of our schools become wards of our
society, unable to cope with the demands of our culture. They spend their lives on welfare or in public supported
prisons. An even larger portion, though able to exist, is unable to achieve happiness and is not able to contribute
to our society in a positive way. Technological advances in commerce and industry have created boundless
opportunity for the individual. The mismatch between the needs of our private sector and the product of our
schools is growing wider daily. The result is huge unemployment among the uneducated and unskilled product of
our public school system.
The history of our public school system is very short, in the terms of the history of man. The people who
invented the idea and wove it into the fabric of our culture were visionary. The concept was clear: Establish
public supported schools everywhere so that everyone has an opportunity for an education.
In the ancient tribes, a form of culture since man began some four million years ago, the child learned from the
adult. The female learned her family and tribal duties from her mother. The male child learned from his father.
As the populations grew and tribes coalesced, society became more complex. The knowledge base also grew.
The carpenter's son usually became a carpenter, and the blacksmith's son followed his father. Still, it often
became necessary for a child to be trained by someone outside the family. Guilds were popular for several
Education Foreword
hundred years. The child entered a working field as an apprentice and learned his trade under the direction of an
artisan.
Our forefathers in America came from such an environment. They recognized the need for education but also
recognized the unfairness of the system. The brother-in-law of the master of the guild always ended with the best
job and the most opportunity. Apprenticeships were scarce and often held for the sons of friends or relatives. The
apprentice program was also narrow, producing a skilled artisan who was ignorant of all else. Our forefathers
envisioned a system that gave everyone an opportunity to learn.
The early teacher came from the ranks of the people. The teacher in a farming community came from a
background of hard work, either on the family farm or in the family business. She taught basic subjects, and
taught them well. There was no need to teach a skill. The students all relied on family for that, or sought trade
union membership as an apprentice. It would be beyond the skills of the teacher, who often taught several grades
at once, to attempt trade training.
Over the years our population grew. Schools became bigger. Administrative hierarchies were required to
maintain order. The universities preparing the teachers became more specialized. Students from the universities
became teachers in the universities. Our society became more affluent. Few of the students at the universities had
prior work experience. It became possible to be a teacher of teachers with no experience "in the real world,"
producing teachers in turn who taught our young, not knowing what the world would be like for them. This gap
in knowledge was then filled with dogma that described, not the real world, but an imaginary and idealized one.
Instead of teaching what the world is, they elected to invent a new world and teach that instead. Much of this
dogma is antagonistic toward a capitalistic form of government and to the industry on which such a culture is
based. This results in students being taught how not to fit. Among these students are future bureaucrats and
journalists, other trades beyond education in which a worker can be antagonistic to a culture and still be able to
benefit by making a pleasant living from that culture.
The tribal instincts in man were born when man first became bipedal, 4.5 million years ago. It was necessary for
survival for a hominid who was neither fast enough or strong enough to survive the predators of that time. A
group effort was required. Each subsequent hominid cultural advancement strengthened these tribal instincts.
Tribal instincts are embedded in man. These instincts cause groups to form. Our entire culture is made up of
thousands of subcultures. The local bowling team is an example. The rivalry between such teams are intense,
enjoyable and have their roots in tribal instincts. Large groups coalesce from smaller ones to form extensive
cultures. In a large factory, the workers consider themselves separate and different from the managers and
develop speech, clothing and facial expressions to set themselves apart. The engineers have their little tribe, in
which the accountant, though greeted with a smile, may find himself being a visitor from another tribe. The
Latino and the black struggle to retain their identities as separate tribes. As our country grew, many cultural
groups were formed. Wall Street has its tribe. The high tech Silicon Valley bunch would have a hard time
understanding the Wall Street jargon and working methods, while being as obscure to the rest of us.
But the Wall Street bunch must produce. If an individual does not produce a profit, he joins the unemployment
line. The Silicon Valley gurus must produce ever more complex designs which will appeal to the marketplace or
they will join their fallen Wall Street brothers in that same line. One by one all of the working subcultures in our
capitalistic system face a performance feedback test which they must pass. They may sound funny in their
speech, look funny in their dress, wear their hair differently, etc. but they must do their jobs well. There are three
notable exceptions: the government bureaucracy, the media, and the educators. As their tribes developed, there
Education Foreword
were no performance feedback loops to keep them on the right path, so they have veered in the development of
their tribal customs. The media has come under criticism of late, and they are loudly claiming a centrist position.
But the center they are claiming is about ten degrees to the left of Fidel Castro, one of their many such heroes.
The bureaucracy is quiet about its position but insidious in its program to reform the government from the inside.
There is no one to close the loop on their actions. They are free to carry out their plans. Our educational system
provides the teachers and leaders for both of these groups, as well as its own. The latter in-breeding is the demon
in the system.
A characteristic of any culture is the knowledge base of that culture. The aborigine in Australia, Borneo or South
America is as bright as we and age for age has as much knowledge as we. It is the quality (fit) of the knowledge
in the culture that counts. The engineering student in a university has more than enough provable knowledge
available to fill his skull to overflowing. The student of education has only dogma, and his brain is as full.
Our education system has become a tribal culture of its own, separate and increasingly out of tune, one
that, as a means of establishing its identity, has become antagonistic to our cultural roots, our form of
government and the industrial mainstay of our society. It has also developed a jargon on par with a medical
doctor and a series of logic developments that defy reason and are, in fact, anti-reason. A professional educator
can now enjoy a fulfilling and well paying career, doing the opposite of what he is paid to do: That is preparing a
student for making his own way.
We need to either return to artisans who teach (as opposed to professional teachers), or isolate our students from
the current educational system. What they teach is not what we need.
The major culprit in our public schools is a destructive ideology - socialism. All of the socialistic beliefs are
based on pure dogma, a text that is totally unfounded, mostly the work of one malcontent, Karl Marx, who was
openly bent on destroying the western culture. He discovered an insidious tool, one that acts as a cancer in all
society. Socialism is a series of beliefs about man that are dead wrong, but appeal mightily to the emotions, so
mightily in fact that religious zealots pale in comparison. Taken element by element, socialism is hard to refute.
Each element is an emotional one. To deny it makes one open to charges of being mean spirited, cruel,
insensitive, etc. No thought is given to long term effects. Each case patches a problem rather than solving it.
Taken as a whole, socialism has destroyed nation after nation. Our country is even now badly wounded and may
never recover.
Modern Marxists deny their heritage, in public. Some even deny that they are socialists. They call themselves
liberals now. But they walk like a duck, they look like a duck and they quack like a duck. All of the texts studied
in education are written by ducks, and the quacks are in every sentence. The teacher then goes forth and quacks
to her students.
All of the social and economic chaos of today may be traced directly to our school system.
So what is wrong? Our entire method of dealing on a people with people basis has changed drastically during
the past 60 years. Was the old way good? Only by comparison with the new. The pioneer based American culture
was effective, but it was also terribly harsh and often it was also just as terribly unfair. We went from a culture
based on religious dogma to one based on socialist dogma. That's like saying we went from the frying pan into
the fire. The new liberal socialist Marxist culture is not harsh, except in its dialog and its method of solving one
victim problem by creating another, but it is not effective and it is destructive as well. Go back to the old? Not on
Education Foreword
your life. Go back to self-discipline, self-determination, and personal responsibility? You bet. Add in
scrupulously enforced fair play? Require diligence, ethics and active participation? You bet, and this time we do
it with a level playing field. Everybody gets a fair chance at the brass ring. Nobody gets to sit on his can and
share in the rewards. Deserving people who play the game fairly and still end behind the eight ball, get a helping
hand from everyone. Those who refuse to play the game, or refuse to play by the cultural rules, do not share in
the rewards. How do we get these things? We stop playing the emotional game and start playing the intellectual
game.
There is movement underway to reform our education system. The movements toward home education and
charter schools are cases in point.
This reform, if it spreads across the country, will go a long way toward solving the economic and technical
deficiencies in our current education system. Unfortunately only half of the problem is addressed in this reform.
If the charter system is successful, the schools will become much more productive in teaching students that
which is taught in our education departments of our universities and colleges. The dogma taught there is in error.
It will be a continuation of garbage in garbage out. The garbage in remains the same. The garbage out is
amplified. All we will have accomplished is becoming more efficient in teaching the students how not to fit in
our capitalistic society.
Much they teach is provable knowledge. That portion is not the problem. The problem comes in the dogma,
taught in the education schools, believed by the students, who then become teachers of our young. Even the
provable knowledge often gets a spin, such as mathematics is an invention by the white male to subjugate the
female and the minority.
We took the religious dogma out of our public schools. We failed to reject far more harmful dogmas. If we had
rejected all dogmas then and never allowed any in our schools, mankind would now be far more knowledgeable
and with a far deeper understanding of culture and its needs. It was a terrible mistake. We are now paying for that
mistake in untold human misery. It may take many generations to undo the damage. We may never make it, since
our nation may collapse before we can make it well. What is proposed in this text is a shortcut. We can bootstrap
ourselves up out of the abyss and into the sunlight.
It is proposed that the public supported school system be relieved of all but the teaching of provable knowledge
to students who are willing and cooperative. Everything else is handled somewhere else. The schools should also
be relieved of any extraneous tasks that draw attention away from the primary function of the school, which is to
educate.
In a way, the schools have usurped duties that belong to the family and to the community. There are four
institutions required in any human culture for the proper rearing of the young: the family, the community, the
school, and the government. The first two are emotionally based and are required by the instincts. The latter two
are intellectually based and are required for cultural well-being and continuity. Each has its task to add to the
well-being of the individual. The government provides protection and overall order. The community provides the
basis for satisfying the tribal instincts and individual enjoyment of life with group activities. The school provides
the intellectual training so that the individual can become independent and self-supporting. The family provides
personal nurture, care and encouragement. Our current school system, by providing group activities, has negated
the community. By providing personal training (what to believe) the family is negated.
Education Foreword
Communities (precincts, towns, counties, etc.) should be required to furnish group activities from arts and crafts
to sports and clubs. To emulate the tribe, these groups should be kept small. All citizens, old and young, should
be encouraged to participate in their community activities. Special recreational training in dance, music and the
study of religions and philosophies are better handled on a community level as opposed to the schools. These are
nice and often valuable things for a society but they detract from the attention to education.
The social and cultural tasks formerly done by schools must be shifted to other more fitting functions. Unruly
students should be handled by the experts in juvenile behavior in the juvenile system. Welfare and medical care
should be transferred to other community agencies. Leave the school free with only one task: to educate.
Why do we (OneLife) insist on the teaching of only provable knowledge? Reasoning is the mental application of
knowledge to obtain a solution to a problem in the environment of the individual. The more provable and
therefore dependable the knowledge, the better the reasoning and the better the solution. So the proper question
to ask should be: How much provable knowledge can we cram in there before we turn them loose on the world?
A high school graduate at the age of 18 is at his first major decision point. He must select his role in the world
and turn down that road. He should have the knowledge that will help him make that decision and then stand him
in good stead as he attacks the learning required for his chosen specialty. Contrast that requirement with our
current condition.
How much knowledge should each person have on graduation from high school? These are our entry level
citizens. We want citizens who can reason and have enough knowledge to support their reasoning. The overall
goal is a high school graduate who is literate, articulate and knowledgeable. One who knows what the universe is
and where he fits in that universe. One who will question every conjecture, opinion, and dogma he comes in
contact with. One who knows how to think, and has enough basic knowledge to determine his own course. One
who fits comfortably and confidently in a complex high tech world.
How do we get to a rational culture based on knowledge? One approach is to borrow the LSM technique and
regain control of our schools, not to return to the old ways of doing things but to gain a new culture designed for
long term human satisfaction. We totally redesign our educational system. We let new generations concentrate on
learning our condition and becoming productive self-motivating confident citizens, while keeping them free from
being taught what to think and how to think it. Let them solve these problems. They will be better equipped than
we.
The new educational system in brief - education through high school:
A national committee is formed to establish the scope of the curriculum. The members would be drafted from all
forms of private employment. No educators, government employees, elected officials or attorneys would be
allowed on this committee. The goal is to establish the scope of information that a high school graduate needs to
gain entry level into private employment and on which to base higher education for seeking a higher level of
employment.
A continuous hypertext document is prepared for 14 years of education (age 4-17) to cover the established
knowledge scope. This document is prepared by contract with private parties, by artisans from the fields to be
covered. All subject matter is seamlessly interwoven. Animation and sound are liberally applied. External
equipment and supplies are furnished. Art, music, drama, dance, sports, literature, philosophy, religion, history,
etc. will not be covered. These are all personal interests that are not universally required and/or are controversial
Education Foreword
in subject matter. They are therefore outside the scope of the public supported school system. Training in these
fields may be found as needed through outside private schools.
Schools will be privately owned and under contract to perform educational services. They are not allowed any
income other than by school vouchers. They will not be allowed to form alliances with other schools. Teachers
will be from the fields covered and rotated with private sector jobs. No teacher will be allowed who does not
have at least five years experience in the private sector. With this teaching system, schools may be of any size.
Huge brick and glass structures are no longer needed. The schools may be scattered in the ghetto in store fronts
or redecorated warehouses.
A central terminal administers all schools. The student obtains his lessons by computer terminal. When he
completes one lesson, he may immediately start the next. The terminal monitors student progress, supplies
quizzes and examinations and provides statistics. The teacher coordinates the use of external equipment and
provides tutoring.
Once established, this system should be made available to everyone. Adults may obtain high school certification.
Shut-ins may broaden their interests and knowledge. Immigrants can gain fluency in English while learning at
home. School lessons are available to anyone at any time of the day or night, 365 days each year. Day school
may be fragmented, so that children and working mothers may spend more time together.
Using mirror installations, the whole system, complete with design software, should be made available to anyone
in the world, in English and free. English-speaking countries could use it directly. The citizens of third world
nations can also use it directly. Learning English as a second language would be of benefit to them. If they do not
want to use English, they can dub their own language. If we do a good job on it, everyone will want to use it.
Every inmate of every jail in the country should be given the choice: Learn or bread and water, take your pick.
Education Dynamics
Education Dynamics
There is a reason why modern schools graduate social and economic misfits. It stems from the social
dynamics of our schools. It is intellectual incest. The teaching of dogma rather than truth. Our education
system is completely out of control.
Why and how did the ideology of the elite intellectual go so far astray? Was it ignorance? No, the participants are
highly educated and intelligent. Are they cruel people bent on species extinction? No, they are compassionate
(but arrogant) people who fully believe that their course is the proper one for man to take. Then what is it that
happened? Why are we so near total cultural failure?
The failure of this movement has two causes. Both, once understood and agreed upon, are correctable. Neither
cause can be described in social terms. Both are well known in science and can be described in terms which
engineers understand. This text will attempt to describe the social system to the engineer in terms he can
understand and describe the control mechanism in a manner such that the social people can also understand.
Show this text to any mechanical, electrical or aeronautical engineer for verification. None will deny it.
First the engineering analogy: the education shift in ideology is caused by a control system using a broad-band
high-gain amplifier with a faulty input and at least five positive feedback loops. Any control systems engineer
will cringe at that description. Any functional system with these characteristics becomes totally out of control
very quickly. A 747 with an auto-pilot fitting that description would probably be torn apart in the air the instant
the auto-pilot was turned on. Our current cultural chaos is typical of that kind of mechanism. The only element
which has allowed us to survive this long culturally is the inertia of a large population and a long average life
span. Those act as damping (integrating) terms in the control loop equation.
Next an everyday analogy using the automobile: If you drive your automobile down a highway, you are the
control system. If you see that your car is moving to the left, you turn the wheel to the right. You initiate a signal
which is opposite to that of the car, and its direction is corrected. Since your signal was the opposite to the error,
it is called negative feedback. What would happen if instead you did the opposite correction? What if, when your
car drifted to the left, you applied a left turn to the steering wheel? The error would become worse. Since the
error is now worse, then, using the same process, you should apply even more correction. The car then turns
more sharply to the left. You then apply even more positive correction. Soon you are crosswise in the middle of
the approaching traffic.
When an error is sensed in any control system and a signal is applied which increases the error, it is called
positive feedbackand it is always disastrous.
Another important part of the control function is a sensor to detect variation. If there is no such sensor in the
problem above (you have your eyes closed, for example, or fog obscures your vision) then no correction will be
made and the car will drift off the lane in one direction or the other. Even this is preferable to positive feedback,
file:///C|/onelifebook/edu/dynamics.html (1 of 6)1/25/2007 4:51:16 PM
Education Dynamics
since the inevitable crash in either case will be somewhat slower in coming if the error is not augmented. This
sensor is the input mechanism to the system. As long as it is accurate in its message, the controller can make
good decisions. If the input from the sensor is inaccurate, nothing can save the automobile. In computereze, this
is called garbage in garbage out.
The high-gain amplifier in our engineering analogy and you, the driver, in our automobile analogy are
represented in our culture by our institutions of higher learning, in particular those institutions which have direct
action on our culture: the liberal arts and education institutions. These functions take students from high schools
and educate them to be leaders in our culture. They amplify the student's knowledge from that at entry level to a
much higher level at graduation. To the extent that the knowledge thereby gained is factual (true), the student
(and society) has gained in the process. But the institution consists of people and people do make mistakes. To
the extent that mistakes (falsehood) are passed on to the student, the student (and society) suffers.
The Five Positive Feedback Loops

Now that we know what positive feedback is and how dangerous it is, let's take a look at the culture forming
portion of our society.
Loop 1: Intellectual Incest

The first and most damaging of the positive feedback loops is loop1: the higher institution to professor to
higher institution loop. If an error is introduced in the institution, such as an erroneous judgement in culture, the
institution graduates a professor who in turn will perpetuate that error in teaching the next generation of
professors. Since the school which produced the error is also the judge of the performance of the professor, the
error is never detected. In this manner, errors will accumulate without limit in the matter taught. The dogma of
Marx was the error which became the basis of the PC movement.
In the case of factual knowledge, the error is soon caught. Errors are quickly caught in any of the hard sciences,
the students are quite good at pointing out error to the faculty. Errors are also quickly caught in objective fields
such as engineering, since the product designed with that error is unsatisfactory.
Education Dynamics
In the case of dogma, such as psychology, education theory, sociology and the like, the error is not only not
caught, it is often seized upon as a basis for new castles in the air. The new professor writes a new textbook
which may, and often does, inflate the error. There are no sensors to detect the error since there is no basis
against which the error may be measured. In the case of psychology, and its consequent follow through in
education theory and sociology, the error was in the definition of man. They made one up. They followed the
thinking of philosophers (not religious philosophers) who have always maintained that man is a wholly
intelligent creature.
There is scientific evidence now available which proves that to be false. Man, instead, is an instinctive
creature with intelligence. Even the reasoning mechanism is instinctive, as is the application of knowledge
in behavior decisions. The religious have known this all along. They preach a creature born capable of sin,
perhaps even desiring sin, but one who can learn to control his actions if given a strict and enforced value
system .
This makes a profound difference in the specification for man's culture. If he is intelligent and educated properly
(by being taught how and what to think) then he can be depended on to make the proper decisions at the proper
time and therefore needs no value system. If he is an instinctive creature with intelligence (primarily memory)
then he needs a strong enforced value system to follow, one that offers sufficient incentive for conformance.
These two cultures are totally incompatible, only one of them can be true. The traditional culture used a value
set. Removing that value set due to a misconception has resulted in the cultural chaos we now endure.
Education is entirely different between the two cultures. If man is wholly intelligent then education consists of
training him in thinking processes, even at the expense of teaching him knowledge, since knowledge is of no
value without the proper processing procedures. Instincts, on the other hand, cannot be educated. It's a waste of
time trying. But the instinctive with intelligence, can be easily trained to behave properly through a firm value
set. Tell him what he is supposed to do, why it should be done and what happens if he doesn't. Man is fully
functional when born, all he needs is a lot of objective knowledge to do great things. To try to train his social
instincts is impossible and results in frustration.
This error in man's definition, coupled with Marxist multiplied in an ever more radical cultural shift in the school
system, has developed into the culturally insane intellectual elite movement in less than a half-century, resulting
in such idiocies as political correctness, multiculturalism, postmodernism and deconstruction.. Outcome based
education, values clarification, whole language, mandatory drug use, psychological testing, therapy, etc. in our
public (government) schools are all symptoms of this cultural disease.
Each succeeding generation through the school accentuates the error, until finally the error becomes the
truth and truth, thereby, becomes false.
Loop 2: Treason in the grade school

The most obvious loop to the public is the higher institution to teacher to student to higher institution loop.
The teacher is taught all of the error accumulated in loop 1, which is then passed on to the government school
students. After graduating from high school, the students arrive at the institution of higher learning already well
immersed in the error in that institution and so are willing and eager students to embrace more of the same. No
measurement is made of the teacher performance against reality and so the error is perpetuated. In fact, if a
teacher should see the error and rebel, that teacher is liable to termination on the basis of incompetence.
Education Dynamics
Almost any caring parent today is totally baffled and outraged with all of the "education" in public (government)
schools and most of that in private schools.
Loop 3: Media - an agent of propaganda

The higher institution to media to the school student by way of the public loop is particularly effective in
building the strength of the errors accumulated in the institution. The graduates of the higher institutions control
and perform in the media. The media, true to its error-laden education, then acts as a propaganda agent for the
errors accumulated in the knowledge. They distort news to the public in favor of their ideological viewpoint. A
mere selection of words will influence the attitudes of the public. A constant referral, for example, to religious
people as being right-wing-extremists molds the public sentiment. The constant referral to socialist projects as
protecting the poor and aged, or taking care of the poor unwed moms, gives positive reinforcement to the errors.
This distortion is also helpful in the election of officials sympathetic with their viewpoints, who will in turn tend
to reinforce those same errors. The television and movie industries are especially effective in the creation of an
amoral public, one of the necessities in a socialist society. Students who seek an amoral life will embrace the
socialist dogma.
Loop 4: Government by Coercion

The higher institution to bureaucracy to public school to student to institution higher loop is a complex one.
The bureaucrat takes the accumulated error in his education with him to his bureaucratic office. Since he is
judged in his performance only by others from the same schools, his errors are not detectable. In fact they are
reinforced by peer pressure. He then exerts pressure on the schools, through regulations, to teach this error in
schools. He may take legal law and with subtle manipulation change it to promote the very error the law intended
to correct. He may blackmail the school into submission by threatening to withhold money from them if they do
not conform. He may give grants and subsidies to schools that comply, thus attracting others to be cooperative.
He may threaten to pull certification from a school that does not comply. Since these actions are taken both with
the government schools from high school and below and the institutions of higher learning, the errors are doubly
enforced. The school is forced to teach the error and the higher level institutions are forced to continue teaching
the error. Freedom of thought concerning the error is suppressed, big bucks are at stake.
Loop 5: Isolation of the Public from Law

Loop 5 is the most heinous. The higher institution to court-officer to school to higher institution loop is the
big stick in the SLM movement. The graduate of the higher institution becomes an officer of the court and, due
Education Dynamics
to his education, enforces the wishes of the bureaucracy and satisfies the error in his own education. Since this is
the only legal path of recourse for the public, the public is stranded from its own government. This essentially
cuts off any attempt for the public to appeal for constitutional protection. It's like calling a cop and then he helps
the robber. The school is then forced by court order to comply. That enforcement strengthens the power of the
imaginative professors who dreamed up this crap in the first place.
Conclusion:
Any one of these loops, if unchecked, can take a hare-brained idiotic theory and blossom it to a full-fledged
destructive juggernaut. All of them together produce an irresistible force.
The Correction
Although there are possible corrections that could be made to each loop, such as requiring teachers and
professors to have experience in the real world before being allowed to teach, or establishing a standard ideology
for all teachers (like keep your cotton picking hands off our culture), censoring the media, or simply abolishing
the teaching of education and psychology dogma, all would create huge controversies, and require self-defeating
bureaucratic controls.
There is a common center for all of the loops, however, the public school system. Severing the loops at this point
and measuring the output of the school ends the positive feedback and provides negative feedback. With a few
simple changes the entire control problem is solved :
Abolish the education bureaucracy.

Teach only provable knowledge to willing and cooperative students. No dogma, no fiction, no hearsay, no
conjecture, no therapy, no compulsory drugs, no psychological profiling, no entertainment. Refer all
unwilling and disruptive students to the juvenile authorities for separate and specialized remedial control.
Bring them back in as quickly as possible.
Provide a wide factual curriculum. Teach the student what he is, where he fits in the universe, and what
the universe is.
Teach all subjects in a traditional manner: lectures, tests, reviews, homework, separate subjects, individual
effort, individual grading, a pat on the back when they do well, a lecture on responsibility when they do
not.
Maintain dignity, safety and order.
Allow time for and make provisions for mental and physical relaxation, not to exceed 20% of the school
day. Such things as literature, art, music, physical and mental games, club meetings, etc. may be used for
this purpose. Attendance to be voluntary and activities do not count in the grading.
Stop and think! Why should we teach children questionable material? All dogma is questionable. Would you eat
questionable food? Would you serve it to your children? There is more factual material available than they will
ever be able to learn. In this knowledge intensive modern world, they need all the background they can get.
Education Dynamics
Teaching provable knowledge is straight forward. Each item of knowledge may be measured. Every scrap of the
curriculum can be evaluated. The amount learned by each student can be measured. The teachers and schools
may be objectively evaluated. The courts no longer enter the problem. The bureaucrats are shut off. The media is
still able to play games with the morals, but the parents can offset that. The students are protected from the
positive feedback from all five loops. They arrive at the higher institution with no experience in and no tolerance
for dogma, hearsay, conjecture or opinion, eager and prepared for their chosen field.
Phonetic vs Whole
Phonetics vs Whole Language

Summary:
This text presents information that shows vocal communication to be a mechanical function performed by
genetically specified and specialized biological machinery. Vocal communication works directly from and
to the conscious brain. Written communication, on the other hand, is shown to be an intellectual skill, one
that may be learned by gifted children but should be taught to all children as a practice. The common
language, that used by the brain to consciously interface in communications, is in the form of a stream of
vocal phonemes. The printed word requires translation to its corresponding vocal phoneme string before
it becomes intelligible. The teaching of reading by the whole language method is shown to be without
merit, and is, in fact, quite permanently damaging to the child in many cases. The study of the basic
communication language of the brain shows that the study of phonemes is the proper method of teaching
the intellectual skill of reading.
Modern education is based on modern psychology. Neither of these 'professional' areas are based on any form of
measurable or provable fact. Marx said some things. Freud said some things. A few philosophers down through
the ages thought about some things. None of these knew what they were talking about. Since then it has been
imagination built on hearsay which was in turn built on conjecture and all of it stacked on top of erroneous
premises. Even the most rigid logic, carefully checked step by step, will provide truth only by coincidence if it is
built on unproven fact. When the logic is not checked and the basis is conjecture, the results would be
humorous if not so deadly serious.
Take the case of whole language as a method of teaching reading and writing for example. It is the modern
darling of the public school system, loved by the educators (but not necessarily by the teachers) and soundly
hated by any parent who cares whether his child learns to read. It has proven to be a disaster everywhere it has
been tried. California tried it and within four years they dropped from 4th in the nation to 49th in early school
reading ability, saved from the bottom only by Mississippi. As will be shown, it is total idiocy both in concept
and practice. This is often the result of depending on dogma as the basis for anything. Surprisingly, it will be
shown that the way phonetics has been used in the teaching of reading and writing has also been in some error,
although far less error than whole language. Whole language will be shown to be damaging to the child, rather
than helpful. Some, if not most, of that damage is not correctable.
The mistake made by the psychology and education establishments is in building their body of knowledge
on the assumption that man is an intelligent creature. This is so far from being true that practice dictated
by this concept is often the direct opposite of what it should be. As shown in other texts, man is an
instinctive creature which late in his development had intelligence added to his behavior determination.
Toward the end of a four million year development, after becoming bipedal, man's current brain was
genetically established somewhat less than 200,000 years ago, less than 5% of the total evolutionary
development period (although it took place gradually over the entire period). All of man's motor skills,
including vocal communication, rely on a brain construction that is genetically determined, as are ALL of
file:///C|/onelifebook/edu/whole.html (1 of 13)1/25/2007 4:51:17 PM
Phonetic vs Whole
man's social drives. Man is intelligent only in his control of these biological devices in seeking his personal
goals.
In ancient times, man learned his speech by immersion in a tribal setting. He was not taught to speak formally,
yet he became fluent. He learned speech in the same manner that he learned to walk. He did it. He talked and
walked. He watched others in order to improve. Others corrected him when he made an error. Since walking is
instinctive, and talking is learned in exactly the same manner, it must be also instinctive (performed by a
specialized, genetically specified, controllable, internal biological machine). Studies of the human brain bear that
out.
Whole language is the concept that a child should not be taught reading and writing. He should, instead, be
allowed to learn reading and writing by being immersed in a rich written communication environment. There he
will learn to read and write much as he learned to communicate vocally before. The teacher does not teach and
does not lead the class. She demonstrates reading and writing and through conversation sells the idea to the
student that reading and writing is wonderful. She performs the role of facilitator. Since there is no structure then
there are no periodic requirements. The child reads. As the child progresses, he moves from being able to read
very little (approaching zero), to reading a lot. His writing is expected to parallel his reading. Since the child
knows little to start, one cannot expect him to spell, write legibly, or understand the meanings of words. He must,
therefore, be imaginative to gain a story from that which he cannot read. In fact it is quite permissible, and
considered a sign of progress, if the child describes what he reads in a completely imaginative way (He hasn't a
clue but learns quickly to be responsive).
A rule of thumb, another of those experience things that really good teachers work by, is called the 80% rule. If a
child cannot understand at least 80% of the subject matter, he will become frustrated, then bored and from that
point on will "tune out" the entire subject matter. If this is true then, obviously, learning reading by the whole
language method will produce a bunch of frustrated, bored and "tuned out" students, since the figure at first is
0%.
The traditional phonetic technique for teaching reading, though flawed from what we now know, was highly
successful. The vocabulary was taught word by word. Watch this sequence carefully. Although effective
(children have been taught and taught well using this sequence), the sequence is quite in error as you will later
see:
1. The printed word was shown to the student and he was allowed to examine it. This was done on a
blackboard usually, although flash cards are probably much better. A good teacher explained the part of
speech and its general usage: "This is a noun.", "This is an adjective," etc.
2. The word was pronounced carefully, usually several times, and slowly.
3. The word was defined. A good teacher then gave several usage examples, then required the students to
respond with different sentences but illustrating the same usage. A cute way used by many was to state it
either as a statement or a question and ask the student to return in the other form. A really good teacher
urged new applications of the word in new settings that she had not covered.
4. The spelling was taught. A good teacher did this vocally (we'll explain later why this is so important) in
chorus, a really good teacher called randomly on several students to spell the word vocally.
5. Then the phonetic structure of the word was studied.
One must remember that most children are quite versatile. They are bright and practical little creatures. Many can
Phonetic vs Whole
learn correctly while you try to teach them the opposite. About the only way a child can be kept from learning
would be complete sensory deprivation. And, even then, I wouldn't want to bet against the little guy coming out
of the box a first rate philosopher. This makes it difficult to evaluate a teaching process. The child has more to do
with the results than the process. He can be held back in his learning by poor or misdirected teaching. He can be
damaged by incorrect teaching procedures, since learning is a near permanent procedure. Whole language is a
process that can permanently partially disable reading ability, but is not damaging to the psyche (sanity), since it
is an error in objective learning. About the only way the reasoning process of a student can be permanently
harmed is by brain-washing, teaching through psychological coercion and intellectual trickery. Our modern
public schools are openly using these techniques, in general, behind all teaching. Better a stupid teacher (or none
at all) than one steeped in ideological trickery.
There are two possible theories behind the promotion of whole language to teach reading.
The reason given to the public by the educators is a simple one. A child learns to talk fluently by being
immersed in a talking environment at home before he starts to school. He is, in a sense, immersed in vocal
communication during that period. Unless something is terribly wrong in the home, the child will learn,
through this immersion in vocal communication, quite well. Therefore, if the child should be immersed in
a rich environment in reading and writing, then he should learn to read and write on his own without any
procedural training. This is a modern (degenerate) teaching mantra, "procedural teaching has been proven
to be a failure. Says who? And on what factual basis?
It could be that the educators know quite well what they are doing. Leading educators of children have
now declared publicly that the priority of knowledge in teaching has been moved from the top of the list
in public schools and now ranks on the bottom. They now feel that self-esteem, civic and environmental
consciousness, group cooperation, etc., all rank much higher on the list. Conversely, a high-tech
entrepreneurial society requires energetic individuals with enough knowledge to excel in a knowledge
hungry environment. This is obviously not the society the children are being trained for. They are, instead,
being trained to fit as happy little dumb animals in a future world herd. Diminishing the reading ability of
the general public will make them more docile and easier to manage.
It would be senseless for a field coach to train a runner to run backwards. Why? Because man is physically
constructed to run the other direction. Could a runner be taught to run backwards? Of course. Could he be taught
to run fast that way? Probably, but it would take a lot of time in studying the motions, correcting the stride, and
learning the proper swinging of the arms. Could this new skill be transferred to running forwards? Yes, quite a
bit of it. The body conditioning would not be wasted, nor the developed spirit of competitiveness. Even the
motion study would be useful, by plugging in new constants and concepts. Can one learn to run either direction
without a coach? You bet they can. Not as fast or as well perhaps, but they can learn to run on their own.
Wouldn't it be more sensible for the coach to study the body first, and determine the proper direction to train the
running? And then with this knowledge of the body, couldn't he provide better training procedures? Of course, he
could, and that is exactly what he does. Why not apply the same reasoning to teaching children how to
communicate? Why not, indeed.
A little background:
With magnetic resonance imaging, the process of reading may be mapped in the brain. We can see where the
Phonetic vs Whole
brain is active as we do different things.
When reading aloud while a magnetic resonance imager scans the brain and plots the areas of metabolic activity,
three areas show up. These are shown in Fig 1 with the left side of the brain showing and the frontal lobes to the
left. The leftmost area is the phonetic processor, the mechanism which accepts a phoneme string and converts it
to voice. The rightmost area is the processing area for the signals from the eyes. It is here that the written word is
examined. The center is a reasoning area . It is my opinion, based on my belief that the reasoning module of the
brain is quite ancient and is therefore located deep in the ancient portions of the brain, that this is a specialized
portion of memory which holds the vocal vocabulary in phoneme form. It is here that the vocal phoneme
vocabulary is cross-referenced with the associated thought and the corresponding hearing phoneme set. However
it performs its function, the location of the device, and its function, can be clearly determined by talking from
memory, reading into memory, and by reading aloud while observing the activity in each of these three areas.
This center area is active in all three. The significance of this finding is profound since it shows that it is here that
the correlation between inner thought, speech signals, hearing signals and sight is established.
The human nervous system, including the brain, is an amazingly complex biological machine. It has two
principle features which make it different from the nervous systems in other mobile creatures: the size of its
memory and its vocal communications ability.
Fig 2 shows a basic nervous system. This system has been around more than a half-billion years and is still used
by many primitive creatures. This is a reactive system. The sensors see a condition, such as heat, light or touch,
and pass that information directly to a reasoning process which analyzes this real time information, decides what
to do and passes the commands to a motor control which executes the desired action. There are single-cell
animals, for example, which live by eating others. They move aimlessly around until they bump into something
Phonetic vs Whole
and then start chomping away on whatever is next to them. There are others that rely on light to power their
photo-synthesis energy system. These will sense which direction has the most light and then swim toward it. This
reasoning module is fixed. It does not learn, it only reacts. The sensor drives the motor controls almost directly.
Signal level translation and distribution is all that is required. If a certain thing happens to it, it responds in a
fixed way. It senses a condition and acts immediately on that condition.
Fig 3 shows the first adaptation, a memory module has been added. This system also receives information, the
same as in Fig 2 but now the information is fed into a memory module instead of directly to the decision making
mechanism. As life became more complex, more and more sensors were added. Man has five senses: sight,
sound, feel, smell, and taste. Only the eyes and ears enter into reading, writing and talking so we will simplify
things a little by discussing only those two. In the early stages the eyes and the ears were connected directly to
the reasoning mechanism. These connections are quite complicated. In the human, for example there are more
than a million connections between the eyes and the brain. Each element in the eye has a private wire directly to
the brain.
The senses are connected to the brain in parallel. All elements of both enter the brain at the same time. There is
no time sharing or switching. The eyes are connected in one area, the ears to another, etc. The memory developed
around these channels. In the beginning the memory was not trainable and consisted largely of inherited images
of things which were important for survival. It was here that recognition of specific food or danger was built in.
Since the eyes watch out for one set of things and the ears another and usually separate, the two channels into the
brain are different. Wave a cutout of a hawk over a nest and most chicks will try to hide. Other animals respond
to certain sounds. But conditions sometimes change rapidly. New dangers move in, perhaps a new predator that
is not a hawk. Those animals with fixed knowledge were not able to adjust to the new conditions. The chick
watches for a hawk but does not flee from a snake crawling into the nest. So trainable memory began to develop
around those same channels. The trainable memory around the junction of the eyes to the reasoning mechanism,
responded to a different kind of signal completely, from that of the ears. Both were trainable memory, but for
different things and in different ways. So we show the memory as two different channels, with a dashed line
showing a very vague separation between the two. Since there is wide correlation, say in hunting in the forest,
between sight and sound, there is memory that bridges the two channels, both to correlate the incoming sound
and sight and also for the recall of prior combinations of sound and sight.
Also within this memory area, certain functions developed which aided the speed of decision and reasoning by
pre-processing the data before it reached the decision making portion of the brain. One of these in the hearing
channel aids vocal communication immensely. It's absence in the seeing channel is what causes our
problems in reading.
So we have a memory, a device which both remembers things from past experience and has fixed congenital
memories (and inclinations) from past centuries within the species. It is this combination of fixed and current
Phonetic vs Whole
memories that we study with respect to reading.

With memory, the reasoning module gains another term to consider in making its decision for action. It still
reacts to incoming information as it flows through the memory, but it also considers past experience from that
same memory before making a decision. The survival benefits are enormous. It no longer repeatedly blunders
into survival problems. If it survived the first, it is likely not to repeat the error. This is still a very primitive
creature because it still reacts to only two terms: current and past experience As the information flows into the
memory module, it sears a pattern, one which in time will heal and the pattern will disappear. The reasoning
mechanism constantly surveys the memory. New experience is continually reviewed and compared with the old.
A constant stream of commands flow out to the motor controls.
The double headed arrow between the reasoning and memory modules indicates a later development in the same
basic mechanism and one which applies to all of the higher animals of today (dog, parrot, dolphin, etc.). The
reasoning module not only uses current and past information in making its analysis of reality, it now contributes
the results of its own reasoning process to the memory as well. This allows plans to be made for future action
based on an estimate of the meaning of past and current experience. Herein imagination developed as various
plans were considered. As it considers current and past memory patterns it makes decisions which are returned to
the memory instead of being routed to the motor controls. This mechanism is wide spread. The major differences
between this in the higher animals and the human brain is the size and complexity of the memory and the
appearance of a unique area on the surface of the human brain that is associated with vocal
communication. This latter element appeared in man about two million years ago, first seen in the fossil remains
of Homo habilis. It has long been known that this latter part of the human brain is not present in the higher
animals and that trauma to that area always affects speech.
A look at the reading process in the brain.
Fig 4 is a vastly simplified block diagram showing the major modules of the modern human brain which affect
communication. A new module, the phoneme processor (control), has been added. It is a development from the
original much simpler voice motor control which allowed only grunts, howls and barks. This new one allows
extremely complex manipulation of the voice mechanism, and it is evidently a new one since it is not even
located in the vicinity of all the old mechanisms which work the legs and arms, etc. Significantly, it is in the
Phonetic vs Whole
vicinity of the memory. It requires huge amounts of memory to function. The purpose of the phoneme processor
is to combine and overlap the succession of sounds (phonemes) which symbolizes a particular thought and
allows that thought to be transmitted through the voice to another being. It has been proven to be a fixed device.
If faulty, due to birth defect or trauma, other parts of the brain can't be trained to take its place.
A new function in the memory, the phoneme matrix, occupies the logical border between the memory and the
phoneme processor. It is in fact a specialized form of memory. The output of this matrix supplies the phoneme
groups which represent thought to the phoneme processor. The phoneme controller then times the phonemes and
coarticulates them (blends them together so that the words are smooth).
The phoneme matrix selects the proper phoneme set for a given thought. The conscious mind composes a
thought process, a sentence perhaps. This sequential process is presented to the phoneme matrix which then in
turn issues the proper string of phoneme sets to the voice phoneme processor. This matrix contains the entire
spoken vocabulary in phoneme form. Please realize that there are thousands of signals which are sent to the voice
mechanism to form a single phoneme, everything from breath control to tongue positioning. So each phoneme
(44 in our language) stored in this matrix consists of thousands upon thousands of instructions to be issued to the
voice mechanism. The vocal vocabulary consists of words stored in the form of the sequence of phonemes
needed to express that word in the voice. This is an extremely efficient method of storing these words, far
more compact than a dictionary.
There are three logical sides to this matrix: 1. Links (in internal brain language form) to thoughts in the main
memory. 2. Vocal representations for each thought (in voice phoneme language form) for driving the voice
processor. 3. Vocal representations for each thought (in hearing phoneme language form) for translating words
into thought when they are heard.
When talking from memory and without reading, the reasoning module selects thoughts from memory, enters
this matrix with each thought in turn and causes the vocal phoneme set corresponding with each thought to drive
the voice phoneme processor and thence the voice.
When hearing, the sound, in the form of electrical signals from the inner ear which represent the phoneme
structure heard by the ear, is applied directly to the matrix. There is no conscious procedure of obtaining the
signals, applying them to the matrix and thereby selecting the corresponding thought meaning. It is done
automatically by direct wire from the ear, applied to a matrix as a conduit directly to the thought. Once a word is
learned by hearing, it is registered in the matrix with a direct connection to its thought meaning which should
have been learned at the same time.
All three sides of this matrix are trainable, indicating that it was formed from trainable material which has been
specialized for vocal communication.
The pronunciation determined by a given vocal word in the matrix (in the form of a series of phonemes that
drives the phoneme processor) which represents a given thought, may be learned, and later changed if necessary.
This happens as we learn a new vocal word to add to our vocabulary. We hear a word then try to pronounce it
ourselves. That first pronunciation is recorded in the matrix linked to the thought which it reflects. If we
pronounce it badly, we try again, and keep trying until we pronounce it properly. So the thought we wish to
communicate is linked in this matrix with the proper pronunciation. The next time we wish to express that
thought, the proper pronunciation, in all its complexity, pops out.
Phonetic vs Whole
It is also possible to train the thought link side. If we learn a word, and how to pronounce it, it is installed in this
matrix and linked to a given thought pattern in our main memory. If we made a mistake (or were taught one) and
that word really meant something else, it may be corrected, but it is much harder to learn the correction than the
original word. Evidently the matrix stores the correction as if it is a new word, though, because the old erroneous
one often pops up when we least expect it. When teaching a new vocabulary word, one must be exceedingly
careful since vestiges of any error will remain after correction.
We start each child off in the training in this matrix when we ask the baby to, "Say ma - ma," while trying to
teach it who mama is. Each word the child learns is by the same method. We point to a feline picture and say,
"Say cat." We carefully sound each word out while associating it with something. Those phonemes flow through
the child's ears to the phoneme matrix. We keep working at it until we get the correct flow of phonemes from the
child's phoneme processor and he pronounces it properly. For millions of years, this has been the way each
child learned its vocabulary. It still should be.
Learning to read a word is a separate and much more difficult task which is based entirely on the correct
vocal learning of the word.
The hearing is very important in this training cycle. As physical changes were made to the brain to accommodate
the complex voicing required, changes were also made to the hearing, the other half of voice communication.
The spoken word is received by the ears in the form of a series of "our" sound phonemes. These are the same
logical phonemes as those used to drive the phoneme voice processor, but in a different code. They are in the
form of "ear" electrical signals from the inner ear. In order to understand the thought in this sound it must be
matched with the phoneme set which has been developed for speaking that same word. And it is, in the same
matrix. At the time that a spoken word is learned, the heard word, mostly from our own voice, is also recorded in
phoneme form but in "ear" code. It is linked directly with the phoneme in "voice" code, as well as being linked to
the meaning which is in a vastly different electrical code.
So, when a word is heard, its detected series of phonemes act as a sorting key to the phoneme matrix and will
automatically find the corresponding meaning link into the memory portion of our brain. The correlation is
learned, the connection is automatic. It took well over two million years to develop this mechanism. This
specialized communication matrix entry does not exist for things that are seen, it only exists for things that are
heard.
So when we wish to speak, our reasoning mechanism first develops its thought, then it searches the vocabulary
memory for the proper words (group of phonemes), shoves them from the matrix into the phoneme processor
thence to the voice. That's all there was in communication for two million years, until about five thousand years
ago when man decided to write things down.
Now to the problems in learning to read and write. The human has all kinds of biological tools to help him
communicate by voice. It's all built in, like having an arm to reach for something, or a hand to grasp it with.
BUT! He must make do with the intellectual tools he already has, tools which were developed for other
functions, to learn to read and write. We added those tasks ourselves. There are no special machines in there to
help. In no way does it come naturally. One must consciously make it happen.
So we'll use a word on a flash card to study the process of learning to read a word. That series of letters without
prior knowledge is meaningless. There is no clue as to its meaning. To hand that card to a child and walk off is
Phonetic vs Whole
absolute idiocy. He has no method to decipher it.

The word (symbol) on that card has no direct association with any idea or thought, ever. It is a printed word
symbol which stands for a series of vocal phonemes. Only when translated into a set of vocal phonemes which
is linked to a thought in the phoneme matrix, can the printed word gain meaning. Where before reading it was
required that a vocal symbol be received by the ears, it is now a visual symbol. Where before with the vocal word
there was a built-in machine to translate that word into meaning, it must be done another way. No such translator
exists for the printed word.
The word must first be translated into its vocal counterpart, then the brain can easily finish the job. It has the
tools to do it. That conscious translation is the key to reading.
To read a word and know its meaning, one must first associate it with an already learned spoken word.
Only then can the meaning be found.
The phoneme matrix can't be accessed to find the link to the meaning any other way.
When anyone reads a word, he converts it to a vocal word and it is that vocal word which gives that written word
meaning. That is why it is so difficult to learn to read without reading aloud. When one is asked for the meaning
of a printed word, he first vocalizes the word (either aloud or silently) then he tells you the meaning. But! How
does one vocalize the printed word that is unfamiliar in printed form? He reads the phonemes, that's how. Once
pronounced, the rest is easy - provided the word in phoneme form already exists in the phoneme matrix
and in turn is linked to the proper thought, and that must be done vocally in advance.
Now the proper procedure for teaching young children to read:
1. Teach the child a vocal vocabulary, (without reference to the printed word) by carefully
explaining the meaning of the word and demanding proper pronunciation. Pronunciation is crucial.
This trains all three sides of the phoneme matrix. It now contains the proper series of phonemes to
pronounce the word, a proper set to recognize the word when heard, and both are linked to the thought
which the word represents. It is also now receptive to translating the written word the instant that word is
spoken in the mind in phoneme form. Now the child has a reference when it tries to read a word. Future
reading ability will depend on the accuracy in the child's pronunciation and the fit the word has with its
proper meaning. Until the child is proficient in reading, always teach the vocabulary vocally first. If at all
possible, this should be done one on one, at least with the younger student.
2. Start the actual reading instruction by teaching the alphabet so that the printed patterns become
familiar. Here again, the alphabet should first be taught vocally.
2. Teach the child the language phonemes and how to recognize them in the printed word. Always
use words previously learned vocally.
3. Teach the child how to parse a word into its phonemes and then pronounce the word.
4. Teach the child new written words to add to his vocabulary AFTER teaching him what they
mean and how to pronounce them.
5. Do a lot of readalong, taking turns with the children, of substantive reading material. Do not use
stories, the child needs to learn to think seriously about serious things. A vocabulary is important, it
is best learned with important literature. The very young will respond to reading about animals.
Don't read cutesypie stories about animals who talk, do read about their lives, habits and habitats.
Phonetic vs Whole
Some don'ts:
Never never never try to teach a young child to read a word that he does not already know the meaning of
and how to pronounce. I even cringe at the idea of doing it simultaneously. The presence of those phoneme
patterns are needed in the memory before the printed word can be learned. The child's vocabulary must be
learned vocally. When the child becomes proficient in reading and phonemes are completely familiar to him and
the words are very long, then the written word MIGHT form the basis for the learning process for the word.
BUT!! that is against nature and should be used sparingly.
Never never never teach a printed word as a word. It must always be taught as a symbol with an associated
meaning. For example, it has been a practice to group words of like sounds to teach a particular phoneme. This
can be quite damaging. Unless a child knows the meaning of each and every word in advance, and has spoken
them aloud himself, he will be forming mental paths which will later need retraining. Those words which are
new will be stored in memory as unimportant words without meaning. In a young child, unfamiliar written
words perceived through the eyes do not have access to the phoneme matrix for translation, even if
internally pronounced properly. Retraining is always a more difficult task than the initial task. The mind
perceives retraining as learning something new in addition to, not instead of the old. The new is recalled most
usually, only because it is in a newer 'portion' of memory. The old will be recalled also, usually at the most
inopportune time. Unlearning something is very difficult. In fact, an intense effort to unlearn something will
result in learning it forever. (This is where modern psychiatry and psychology fail, the more attention paid to a
problem the deeper seated it becomes.) This is caused by the way our brain learns. It has no eraser, and it
intensifies with repetition.
Try not to ever teach a word in a nonsense setting. The purpose of teaching a word is to gain in
communication proficiency. It should be taught in a meaningful way and associated with a meaning that has
substance. When reading a passage with new words in it to a class: first read the passage then study each new
word first vocally then by print. Have the children read the passage aloud so they can gain the pronunciation
(articulated phoneme string). Be sure, before leaving that passage, that every child knows every word. Also be
sure that the passage has meaning. Discuss a new factual idea. The word memory is then intensified by its
association with the idea.
From strictly a mechanical point of view:

Here are some other things to teach as the child progresses in reading skill;
Always teach proper spelling and proper pronunciation. Both are indispensable in reading. Anything
that reduces confusion aids in reading.
Do not allow the child to vocalize as he reads. Vocalization is very slow compared with the speed of the
brain and it will slow the process. Teach the child to internalize. Tell him to let his mind do the talking.
Mental vocalization is usually about twice the speed of actual vocalization, dependent on the child's skill
in phoneme vocalization.
Teach the child to seek the meaning without the mind talking. Reading is a conscious skill. It takes
place in the outer memory/reasoning portion of the brain. That memory is trainable (often-used paths
become deeper). Each time the child reads a word and subconsciously finds the meaning of that word by
vocalizing it, the trainable memory makes note of it. With repetition (a lot of reading) the trainable mind
Phonetic vs Whole
copies that portion of the vocal phoneme matrix used in reading. In time and with practice (years of it),
the trainable mind can perform the meaning lookup function of the phoneme matrix without actually
accessing the matrix. It has formed a replica of the phoneme matrix tied directly to the symbol of the
perceived word. Teaching the child, as soon as he reads well, to suppress even the internal vocalization, to
go directly from the printed word to the meaning, will increase the speed of comprehension considerably.
Teach the child to read a word without moving his eyes along the word. It takes about 50 milliseconds
for the eye/brain to perceive a new view. The physical movement of the eye, if refocusing is not necessary
and the movement is small, is in the same frame of time. Comprehension is considerably faster, possibly
in the vicinity of 10 milliseconds. So each time the eye is moved to a new location on the page, it requires
about 110 milliseconds to perform the entire function, whereas if the eye remains stationary and
peripheral vision is used to see the next syllable or word, the time is reduced to from one-sixth to one
tenth of that time. One can read 6 to 10 times faster, with the same comprehension, by moving the mind
rather than the eyes.
There should be sufficient peripheral vision to move the eyes to the center of several words when
reading. Normal vision will allow a considerable portion of the page to come into view at one time.
Encourage the child to stretch his seeing ability when reading by curtailing the movement of the eyes.
Some people develop this skill to the point where they can read an entire page with one setting of the
eyes.
Teach the child to read ahead of his understanding. If a sentence is read word by word, the mind may
come to many conclusions as the sentence is being read, the only correct one being the last. This confuses
comprehension. Teach the advanced child to read a sentence rapidly, without attempting comprehension,
then let his mind decide what the sentence says while he reads the next.
Some general comments:

Why in the world don't we convert our written language immediately from 26 letter symbols to 44
phoneme symbols??? It would remove one level of translation from the reading process. It would make spelling
an easy task and learning how to read would become a pleasure.
Dyslexia is a malfunction in the intellectual process of converting the printed word to the spoken word, resulting
in a lack of comprehension. Since this process uses the same mechanism as that used in learning general
information the two should be equivalent. When the reading comprehension lags other learning it is very
possible that the child has been pushed into reading before adequate vocal comprehension and
pronunciation was assured. The thought paths have then become damaged. The repair is quite difficult and may
never be complete. But heavy doses of phoneme instruction seem to help.
There is one particular point in the normal process of reading which could possibly cause dyslexia due to a
physical deficiency. The normal (vocal) communication process relies on a learned phoneme string association
with a meaning (the actual meaning is held in conscious memory). The phoneme matrix automatically obtains
that phoneme string directly from the ears, it does not need to be perceived and then associated with meaning.
The meaning, instead, is associated with (linked to) the phoneme string in the phoneme matrix, a subconscious
function. Reading communication, however, requires the perceived symbol to be translated into a phoneme string
in the conscious mind. The conscious mind must first have been taught that phoneme string by reading the word
out loud. But the heard and spoken phoneme strings are perceived in the mind as articulated (the phonemes are
smoothed together). If the child has never been taught how to ARTICULATE the word, even though he has been
made aware of the phonetics of the word, their is no cross-association in the mind with the meaning. It has been
Phonetic vs Whole
noted that children afflicted with dyslexia have particular problems in 'sounding out' the written word. Even
though the probability is that the affliction is caused by poor training, such as whole language, it is possible that a
genetic malfunction at a critical junction causes it.
It is interesting to note that learning (the establishment of patterns in the trainable memory) is necessarily a
repetitious process. The brain cells are connected in a vague way when the baby is formed (except for those
portions which carry genetic memory - instincts). When a thought is formed down through the brain, those lines
through which that particular thought propagated are intensified. Recalling that 'scorched' path is what we call
memory. If the same path is repeated, either through recalling or experiencing the same thought again (as in
reading the same word again), that same path is 'burned' deeper. With repetition, that thought may become as
strong as an instinct. At that point its use becomes reactive, the same as an instinct. Who says that rote
repetition is a poor way to learn?
Any teaching procedure that has been proven to be successful in treating (compensating for) dyslexia should
make an excellent teaching program for all children. The whole reading process is based on conscious
compensation for the lack of a translator in the visual path.
Can reading be taught with the whole language method? Of course it can. It exposes the child to the need for
reading and provides attention and reading material. But it's like teaching the child to run backwards. It can be
done but it's the hard way and there will be more children who will fall by the reading wayside. And the bright
ones don't even need a coach. Toss them a few books and leave them alone. But, if you want maximum results
from the maximum number of kids, do it the easy way, the right way, with phonetics.
In conclusion:
It is interesting to note that when students become damaged while trying to learn under the whole language
process, they are usually placed in remedial classes where they are taught in phonetics in the same manner as
classes for correcting dyslexia. Those innocent defective students were deliberately taught dyslexia. Since the
remedial classes attempt to correct students reading processes with the use of phonetics, then it is proven that the
education establishment is aware of the differences between the two teaching procedures.
It is my opinion that since the information in this text is well known, or should be known, by teachers as a part
of their responsibility, the teachers and the school administrators who insist on teaching reading by whole
language are liable in a court of law for the damage they do to the student. It is deliberate and nothing less
than criminal.
I urge all parents who have children who have so been damaged to immediately and individually file suit
against the teachers directly responsible in person, their administration in person, the area education
district administrators in person, the state education officials in person and the federal education board
officials in person.
Whole language must be stopped!
Phonetic vs Whole
Drugs
The most successful pusher of drugs to children is

the public school system.
Most modern addicts get their start on the school grounds, not from the pusher hanging over the school fences,
but from the school itself. It is there where they learn all about drugs, what they feel like, which ones are
dangerous, what they look like, and how available they are. When the child decides he must experiment, he
knows which one to look for, what the signs of quality are, the going prices, and he has been reassured that they
are available. He knows what downers and uppers are and how to use one to offset the other. The school makes
sure that the child becomes well educated in drugs. It is in fact a mantra of the educators, "Drug use is going up,
therefore, we must redouble our efforts to educate the child in drugs." This is quite kin to the statement, "The fire
is getting bigger, therefore, we must throw more gasoline on the fire." And besides, the child is taught:
"Everyone is doing it."
The child also knows that all he needs to do is pitch a tantrum and he gets a free and endless supply from
the school nurse.
Children are born ignorant. Very few are born stupid. Most, in fact, are born very bright. All of them are intuitive
(instinctively accurate) in divining personal relationships. They enter the world with instinctive expertise in
divining the real relationship that adults project. Millions of years of evolution provided them with this ability. It
was necessary for their survival. Those smart little rascals perceive much more than adults think. They are quick
to perceive hypocrisy and as quick to get any hidden message.
Drug promotion through drug education.

The purpose and proper use of education is to teach something desirable. It is not an effective way to teach
something not wanted. In fact, if something is not wanted, it should not be taught at all. The human brain will
learn what it is taught. It makes up its own mind whether to use that lesson or not in actual practice. The human
is an instinctive creature with intelligence. His instincts will not respond to education. But his mind will soak up
everything he hears. Then it lies there, begging to be used.
Let's take murder, for example. If one should want the child to grow up to be an efficient murderer, then one
would teach the child the proper use of knife, gun and poison. Any extra time should be spent in showing the
child how to tie hangman's knots, how to build an incinerator, how to dismember bodies, how to use a club and
how to build a car bomb. Drive by shooting could service as a bonus lesson for the bright ones.
If one does not want the child to be a murderer it's quite simple. Don't teach him any of those things. Tell him
what murder is, why it is wrong and impress him that he is in for a lethal injection if he does it. Then spend the
time saved in studying real provable useful knowledge on a more useful subject.
The same with drugs. Teaching drugs in school adds a stamp of importance to drugs, one not deserved. It also
tells the child that drug use is common, so one is not an oddball if one takes drugs. He also learns about drug
file:///C|/onelifebook/edu/drugs.html (1 of 8)1/25/2007 4:51:18 PM
Drugs
rehab, a safety net that he can depend on if he should get curious and experiment, then get carried away. If the
child ever wonders how to cook the drugs and insert the needle (always a clean one so that HIV is avoided) along
with the care necessary to keep air bubbles out, all he needs to do is stay awake during drug classes. In fact, the
poor kid had better keep awake, if he dozes off he's liable for Ritalin treatment. He'll be on drugs real quick
whether he wants to be or not.
The opposite attack might be used, if the desire is to diminish the use of drugs. Tell the child that when he shoots
drugs with a needle, he is apt to die suddenly from air bubbles, or catch AIDS and die a lingering death, or die a
painful death from infection, but don't tell him how to avoid these things. Tell him about killings over drugs, the
shattered lives about drugs, every horror story possible. Or better still, treat it as an unspeakably stupid thing to
do, something very close to suicide, and a disgrace to him and his family. And nothing else. Let him know that
drugs are so idiotic that there is no sense in wasting any time on it.
Has anyone considered mandatory testing for the entire school staff? It is possible that recreational use is
widespread, and their admonitions about drugs don't ring any more true than the curriculum suggests. Children
are astute in diagnosing hypocrisy. It would be worth it to grab a few schools at random and throw a surprise test,
complete with DEA agents. It might be wise to have standby crews available to avoid the chance of a school
shutdown.
Drug promotion through confusion

Recently a young girl was suspended from middle school for giving a Midol tablet to another girl, who was also
punished. Midol is a legal drug that requires no prescription. In another case a young girl was suspended for
bringing aspirin to school. By equating non-prescription drugs and illegal drugs and treating them as equals, it is
taught that Midol = cocaine, or cocaine is in the same class as Midol. Once this lesson is learned, cocaine is no
longer frightening. It tends to become as acceptable as aspirin, or Midol.
Check the curriculum in any school with scheduled drug classes, (even having drug classes legitimizes drugs)
and ask to see the list of drugs they will cover. There will be cocaine and heroin, of course, along with pot,
caffeine, aspirin, alcohol and nicotine. No distinction is made. They're all in the same group. No attempt is made
in the listing to show that some are legal, others are not, and some are not immediately dangerous while others
are deadly. The attempt appears to be to show the child that, really now, your dad drinks booze and your mama is
addicted to cigarettes, so what's wrong with a little recreational coke once in a while?
Drug promotion courtesy of the local police

What do the children learn from a policeman who comes to school to teach the children about drugs? He shows
up in uniform, very impressive, and gives stature to the subject of drugs. And proceeds to instruct the children in
the use of drugs. He assures them all that the stuff is available everywhere and the use is widespread. Sure, he
says it's all bad, but children have very selective hearing. Those mean little kids in the back row rub their hands.
They've had all of their fears allayed. All they need to do is be careful. Clean needle, hold it to the light and
depress the plunger until fluid comes out, wrap the rubber band around the upper arm, pump the vein up, and
have a ball. They know the procedure by heart. What can they use as a starter? Every child in the school knows
that Ritalin in a bigger dose than normal, ground to a powder, mixed with water and boiled, taken in the vein,
gives a high that is very close to the very best cocaine. And if the vein is too much to handle, snort the powder
and get almost the same high. One can even use a razor blade, divide the powder into snort lines and use a straw,
Drugs
just like they do it in the movies. And it must be safe, half the kids in the school are taking the stuff by
prescription, by order of the school.
Drug promotion courtesy of 'recovered' addicts and 'rehabilitated criminals'

There are men who make their living traveling around "getting tough with those kids." Most are fakes, con men
who make their living that way. In gutter language they tell their tale. Years of addiction, living in degradation.
One horror story after another. Then each tells finally the inspiration that made him see the error of his ways. The
memory of mother, a dying addictive sister, tales that bring tears to the eyes.
Most of the kids see through such garbage and pay no attention, other than answering the teacher right when she
asks about the lesson. The others see someone who took drugs for many years but was still able to recover. It
must not be too hard to quit. Besides, "All I'm going to do it is one time. I won't have any trouble quitting at all."
Readin', Writin', Ritalin

The 'newer and kinder' schools do not maintain order in the classrooms. When children are not taught to behave,
they don't. Their rowdiness annoys the teachers who did not keep order in the first place. They send the noisy
ones to the school nurse, who promptly prescribes Ritalin. If the parent refuses to go along, child care enters the
picture to see if the parent should be charged with child abuse and/or neglect. A lot of parents like the idea. It
makes the kids easier to handle at home. Other parents, more stubborn in resisting, suddenly find themselves
paying $250.00 per hour for professional help for their child, demanded by the school. If they still balk, the local
judge will order the treatment. There are reports on the internet of schools where more than 50% of the students
are on Ritalin, and at least one report on a trouble spot inner city school where Ritalin is alleged to be an
ingredient in the food in the school cafeteria.
Since Ritalin is so wide spread, the official estimate (probably in error by at least a factor of 10) is more than two
and possibly three million school children regularly take Ritalin.
What is Ritalin?
Ritalin Pharmacokinetics Description: Methylphenidate is an orally administered central nervous system
stimulant that is chemically and pharmacologically similar to the amphetamines. Methylphenidate's CNS actions
are milder than those of the amphetamines and have more noticeable effects on mental activities than on motor
activities. Methylphenidate shares the abuse potential of the amphetamines and is also a DEA schedule II
controlled substance. It is clinically used in the treatment of narcolepsy and as adjunctive treatment in children
with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.
There is a large amount of advertising on the internet from people who claim to have much less dangerous
solutions to hyperactivity and attention deficit through natural substances. Search AltaVista with the keyword
Ritalin and you will find many. If your child is threatened with being placed on Ritalin, it might be worthwhile to
consider some of these along with dietary changes (elimination of refined sweets, etc.). Maybe a few clandestine
trips to the woodshed might help too, but be careful of the local gestapo. If your child is having behavior
problems in school, it might be advantageous to teach the child to behave and keep him off drugs.
Drugs
What are the possible side-effects of Ritalin?

Even when taken according to the prescription directions, there is a risk of developing dependence and
tolerance to the drug. The manufacturer cautions physicians to be on the lookout for the following adverse
effects:
nervousness and insomnia;

loss of appetite, nausea and vomiting;
changes in heart rate and blood pressure (usually elevation of both, but occasionally depression);
skin rashes and itching;
abdominal pain, weight loss, and digestive problems;
toxic psychosis;
psychotic episodes;
drug dependence syndrome;
severe depression upon withdrawal.
What about the illegal use of Ritalin?

Ritalin tablets, which produce mild stimulant effects when taken as directed and at usual prescription doses, can
create powerful stimulant effects and serious health risks when crushed and then snorted like cocaine, or injected
like heroin. Producing cocaine-like stimulant effects, snorted or injected Ritalin is just the latest trend in a
resurgence in abuse of stimulant drugs.In recent years, the frequency of diagnosis for attention deficit
disorder has increased dramatically, especially since adults are now diagnosed with this disorder that had
previously been considered a children-only disease. Prescriptions for Ritalin have increased more than
600% over the past five years according to the DEA, and a significant portion of these prescriptions are diverted
for illicit non-medical use. When purchased in pharmacies with a valid prescription, Ritalin tablets usually cost
25 cents to 50 cents each. In the illicit street drug market, tablets sell for $3 to $15 each. While street prices in the
Midwest are now at the low end ($3 to $5 per tablet) compared with some West Coast locations, they have been
rising over the past few years. Epidemiologists at the National Institute on Drug Abuse describe Ritalin abuse
over the last two decades as "sporadic but persistent," and rates of use fluctuate over time.
If abused, what are the dangers of Ritalin?

HEALTH CONSEQUENCES Ritalin (methylphenidate) is a central nervous system stimulant, similar to
amphetamines in the nature and duration of its effects. It is believed that it works by activating the brain stem
arousal system and cortex. Pharmacologically, it works on the neurotransmitter dopamine, and in that respect
resembles the stimulant characteristics of cocaine. When taken in accordance with usual prescription instructions,
it would be classified as having mild to moderate stimulant properties, but when snorted or injected it has a
strong stimulant effect.
Health Consequences of Intravenous and/or Injection Drug Use The hypodermic syringe was designed to deliver
a concentrated dose of a drug quickly and efficiently. In doing so, it bypasses many of the body's natural defense
mechanisms such as the skin, respiratory cilia, digestive acids, etc. The syringe allows anything in it (drugs, dust,
bacteria, pollen, allergens, yeasts, viruses, fillers, etc.) to pass directly into the blood and body tissues. The rapid
delivery of drugs via injection makes it difficult for the user to control the intensity of the drug effect, thus
making toxic overdoses more likely. When drugs are prepared for injection by a street user, dust, dirt, and other
Drugs
contaminants fall into the liquid. Bacteria, talc, lint, and other particles are injected along with the drug. The
"inert ingredients" that manufacturers include to increase the bulk may be harmless when taken by mouth, but
talc, cellulose, mineral oil, and sugars (among other fillers) can create serious problems when injected directly
into veins or body tissues. Complications from injection drug use include:
drug overdoses and toxic overdose reactions;

blood clots from scar tissue,
particles in the liquid, cotton and lint fibers, etc.;
infections ("blood poisoning," abscesses, hepatitis, AIDS, etc.);
scars ("tracks" and adhesions);
pulmonary problems ("addict's lung," embolisms, etc.);
skin and circulatory problems.
There are numerous reports in medical journals about permanent and irreversible lung tissue damage related to
injection of crushed Ritalin tablets. Health consequences of Snorting Drugs (Intranasal Insufflation): The delicate
epithelial tissues that line the nasal cavities and air passages may be damaged by direct contact with drugs.
Ritalin tablets contain the hydrochloride salt of methylphenidate and yield dilute hydrochloric acid when they
come into contact with moisture. While this is not a problem in the stomach (hydrochloric acid is one of the
digestive acids used in the stomach), in the nasal passages the acid can "burn" the delicate nasal tissues, resulting
in open sores, nose bleeds, and possibly in deterioration of the nasal cartilage.
Legal issues in the illegal use of Ritalin

LEGAL ISSUES Ritalin (methylphenidate) is a Schedule II Controlled Substance under the federal Controlled
Substances Acts. Under federal and state law, dealing in or distributing Ritalin is a serious felony. Depending
upon the quantity, location of transfer, and age of the recipient, dealing in Ritalin could be a Class A Felony
resulting in a prison term of up to 45 years, and a fine of up to $10,000.
The sale of Ritalin tablets by students to other students is common. Some students, not on Ritalin themselves,
feel that they are at a disadvantage in school, much in the same manner that athletes resent other athletes taking
steroids. They will buy the drug and try to regulate their own dosage. The traffic in illegal Ritalin by school
children for recreational purposes is high. Parents are cautioned that if their children traffic in illegal Ritalin, they
could lose their homes , automobiles and savings accounts due to DEA seizure. In addition they could face
serious charges of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and child abuse. They are also liable to lawsuits for
damages from the parents of the other child.
Once on Ritalin it is customary to leave the child on the drug until the 10th or 11th grade. The problem is:
Sooner or later that child must face the real world on his own two feet. If he has been propped up on drugs, there
is a loss of confidence when released from them. Other reports on the internet claim that a large percentage of
these children on Ritalin will turn to other drugs when they can no longer get Ritalin.
In Conclusion:
Our public schools incessantly promote the use of drugs. Is it stupidity? Is it incompetence? Is illegal drug use so
wide among the educators that they are seeking company and acceptance? Is it ideologically driven in a
deliberate attempt to diminish the will of the American public in the face of an imminent socialist takeover?
Drugs
Merely another part of the process of dumbing down the American public? Or is it intellectual insanity? The
result of generations of uncontrolled thought without basis or value?
An error of this proportion cannot be absorbed by our society indefinitely. It is typical of the error in every nook
and cranny of our education system. The entire system is destructive. Whatever the reason, it appears that the
only solution is to:
abolish schools of education, their dogma is false and destructive;

abolish the entire education bureaucracy, they hinder reform rather than help;
teach only with craftsmen from the real world;
forbid the teaching of any form of dogma in any state supported school;
forbid all schools from administering any drugs;
rescind laws which now allow schools to dictate psychological treatment.
READERS COMMENTS
READER'S COMMENT:
I found your web page in a web search for the "psychology" of "drug pushers".
Reading your page was pretty insightful for my purposes, but the more I read on, I realized that your message is
the most dead on view of how to deal with the drug problem in today's youth. A lot of the drug education in my
high school taught you the calculated risks of it all - the how to's, the what-to-look-out-fors, the seemingly-minor
downsides of it all, and the penalties if caught. With this in mind, a lot of people just play game theory and
calculate the risks & make a well-informed decision to do it anyway. More should be focused on positive
alternatives in life that would give some better reasons not to get involved.
Just wanted to say "right on" and hope that you get your message out to the educators in this country!
READER'S COMMENT:
I think that a proper education concerning drugs is probably the BEST thing that could be done for today's
children. In fact, I think that part of the reason drug use is so bad is from a lack of proper knowledge. Part of the
problem is that the current "drug education" programs, such as D.A.R.E, treat drug addiction as a purely criminal
problem, and are presented by figures that the children are unlikely to respond positively to (i.e, a police officer
comes in, and tells them "Don't do drugs, they are bad, and they make you into criminals. If you do drugs, me or
one of my associates will have to arrest you and put you in jail." The unsuccessful tactic attempted here is to
scare the kids into doing the right things; this is hardly effective at all. The drug problem in America has been
called "epidemic". That very term implies that it is at least a partially medical problem. However, few if any
medical programs have actually been applied to the current drug problem, and NO medical approach to drug
education has ever been taken. Children are told "don't do drugs! you'll die!" or "you'll become a criminal" or
Drugs
"you'll go crazy and kill someone else or yourself". They are not told the facts about most drugs; this lack of
knowledge, combined with the horror stories of parents and D.A.R.E officials, makes the experimentation with
drugs into a perfect way to rebel. When teens find out that marijuana doesn't instantly turn a person into an
insane criminal, they begin to feel like they've been lied to; they say "Gee, this isn't as bad as they made it out to
be!". Of course, this often results in experimentation of other drugs, and the growing apathy towards the damage
that such drugs might cause. In addition, alcohol and tobacco legality can give crossed messages to teens
experimenting with drugs. Adults say "drugs are bad" but often enjoy a drink themselves, under the false
pretense that drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes are not considered drug use. When teens then go out and
try some weed, they find that its effects are often not nearly as strong as alcohol's, and that it is "better for you
than cigarettes, because cigarettes have added chemicals". These are yet more additions to a pile of
misinformation plaguing American youth. This is a tough subject for me; I say the things I do because I was in
that position. I picked up my first drink when I was ten. My parents would say "don't do drugs! You'll end up a
bum, or in jail!". Yet, they would enjoy a few cocktails upon coming home from work; I quickly deduced that
they derived a sense of relaxation from the drink. I tried it myself, and what do you know! I was right. I could go
on forever about my regrets; but let me sum it up for you; If I had known more about drugs, and if both
misinformation and the hypocrisy of "the war on drugs" in a society dependent on alcohol and other drugs could
be erased from our learning process, then perhaps I wouldn't have tried that first joint, and then that first line of
coke. But I did. And I learned from that the hard way. People must be properly educated about ALL of this. The
lack of such information would only make matters worse. The only thing that kept me from trying marijuana and
other drugs until I was 14 was the fact that I was scared S***less to; but once I had... whoa! was I hooked. I was
convinced I'd been lied to, and fed with the ideas of the drug-using culture that my false education was all a
conspiracy of the government and of the tobacco and alcohol companies to make money off of the American
public. As to your example of old guys travelling around getting tough... I'll tell you what , nothing was so
convincing to me of how messed up my life had become as seeing a friend die from a cocaine overdose. What
makes you think that most of these guys are old fakes? It was a group of such 'old fakes' that eventually helped
me to reach sobriety. My story, as compared to the ones I heard from some of these people who had been doing
drugs for 10 years longer than me, were nothing. It was their stories, made even more believable by what I had
already seen, that eventually helped me to retrieve my sanity. I was 20 when I reached sobriety. I think that other
teens can do it too... And I can't help but wonder sometimes, "what if I had just known about that group a few
years earlier..." Unfortunately, my school had given me no such educational opportunity. And my god! I wish it
was treated as a medical problem, as it is in Holland! Do you know how hard it was to sober up after years of
drug use?! Perhaps if we adopted a hollandesque approach to drugs, we might actually help to curb drug use,
God forbid. (and contrary to the belief that holland's residents are a bunch of addicts and drug users, and crime is
higher over there, the fact is that most of the drug addicts and criminals there are people from other countries..
but that's another subject entirely...) What I mean to say by all of this is that it is not the education of drugs that
causes drug use, but the lack thereof, or the falsification thereof. To teach the wrong things is as bad as not
teaching kids at all. Perhaps if americans knew ALL the facts about the drugs floating around (including
alcohol), they might be able to fight it off. I'd like to think that I'm a little older and a little wiser now, and that
hindsight is 20/20...
AUTHOR'S REPLY
This poignant letter says it all:
Modern psychology, as reflected in the modern schools, teaches that if others do wrong, that can be used
as an excuse for doing wrong. A major defense in the Clinton scandal is 'others do it and in fact other
presidents have done it'. A common excuse among drug users is 'my folks used alcohol and that's a drug'
Drugs
and 'they smoked and so it's OK for me to smoke marijuana.'

This young man had been taught by everyone that drugs were dangerous. He chose to use them in spite of
that knowledge. What else could he have been told about them that would have kept him from his
experimentation and eventual addiction? The answer is 'nothing'. He was a knowledgeable rebel, who
now seeks an excuse for his actions. More education would have made no difference. He chose his path
and will pay the price.
Holland is often used by drug users as an ideal. It is, instead, a haven for drug addicts from the four
corners of the earth. It has become so serious that the government is seriously considering turn around
legislation. The problem is that addiction is so high that to suddenly criminalize it in any way would
create serious social problems.
Rebellion in the young is not restricted to rebellion concerning drugs. It also extends into sexual and
criminal behavior. Modern educators believe that education is the answer to all behavior problems. They
have yet to realize that the human is an instinctive creature that has an intellect. The intellect may be
educated. Knowledge can teach the person what his behavior should be. The instincts must be trained. A
person is trained through edict and enforcement. Educators (and most modern families) have discarded
training as a means of behavior control. All modern children receive enough knowledge to behave
properly, but many choose not to do so, and since they are not required to do so (the social rules are not
enforced) they do as they please, often to there own detriment. Then educators and parents try to solve the
problem by more education, toward children who already know quite well what they should and should
not do.
Drugs are not a medical problem, they are a discipline problem (admittedly a harder problem with some
than others, as with any other behavioral restriction). We no longer believe in discipline. The problem will
get worse.
I sincerely wish this young man the very best. I believe he is sincere and will succeed. And we'll be able
to count on him to be the dutch uncle toward many youngsters and keep them from following his path.
He'll be adamant and what he will teach them he will probably call 'education' but which I call 'training'.
The Curriculum
The Curriculum
At graduation from high school, the student must be fully prepared to select his field of specialization and have
the basics required to do well. He should be well rounded in general factual education. The actual curriculum
should be established by the amount of real knowledge that can be absorbed during the school years. The
following are suggestions that will be near the scope required.
Communication is an extremely important part of human life. Every word in the language is a symbol for a
meaning in the mind. Encouraging the student to increase his vocabulary by reading a new word, then spelling it,
speaking it, and using it in a meaningful way embeds that word in the student's mind. Composition, grammar and
proper word usage should be constantly required from the student. The larger his vocabulary and the more
crafted his sentences, the more reasoning and ideas that he can express (and the more he will understand).
Vocabulary building is essential on every day of schooling, even if only a few minutes each day. These elements
for building communication skills should not be relegated to a particular class but should be an element of every
subject. Periodic reports on all subject matter will provide practice. Proper spelling, proper pronunciation, proper
usage, and proper grammar should all be stressed in all classes no matter the subject matter. Proper respect for
language should be taught. Teach any child to be skilled in communication and earn his undying gratitude every
day of his life.
The first day in kindergarten, the brand new student should be shown a computer and taught how to find pictures
of all of the animals and birds by the first letter of their names. By the first grade, they should be making
sentences about those animals and birds, and using the spelling checker and the grammar checker to check their
work. By the third grade they should be researching on-line hypertext and making reports in all of their classes.
The high school graduate should be capable of researching any subject in any field covered by his education and
preparing a well-written grammatically correct report on the subject. He should also be able to deliver that report
vocally and with confidence before any audience
Life- Learning should start early, on the subject of life. This study should be graduated and presented in part
every year of schooling. The study of plants and animals can start the first day in kindergarten. The first studies
of evolution should begin by the fourth grade. Students should begin molecular biology by the eighth grade.
Vertebrate development should end the series. These classes need not be as rigorous as those for specialization in
the field but should be sufficiently deep to develop in the student an awareness of the kinship of life and the way
he fits in it.
The high school graduate should be well versed on the subject of life and its various forms. He should understand
evolution from the molecular level to its effect on culture and the degradation caused by culture. He should be
able to converse freely and confidently on his own position on the tree of life.
Matter and the universe -A model of the earth, sun and moon should be in the room of the first year in
kindergarten, and each child should be taught the relationship and movement. The first grader should understand
file:///C|/onelifebook/edu/educur.html (1 of 7)1/25/2007 4:51:19 PM
The Curriculum
the mechanism of phases of the moon, and be able to watch a calender to predict their occurrence. The fourth
grader should know the planets and their satellites in our solar system. By the sixth grade, the student should
have some understanding of molecules and atoms and have a grasp of the size of our galaxy. Geography of the
earth, the formation of continents, tectonic shift, meteorology, and archeology should be integrated into this
subject matter.
The high school graduate should understand the basic structure of his universe, from subatomic particles to deep
space and understand the mechanical systems at work.
Computers are the backbone of the entire education structure. Proficiency in their use will come naturally
through experience. Students will also become proficient in the use of the World Wide Web by doing research
projects. The teaching of the mechanics of computers, how they are constructed, the coding used within them, the
various elements of programming should begin at about the 6th grade. In the higher grades the student should
learn a programming language, preferably one that is close to the spoken language, such as Pascal or BASIC.
Procedural thinking is taught in all of the science subjects, such as chemistry and physics. Still, nothing beats the
intellectual order inherent in mathematics or a good programming language such as Pascal (which was designed
as a teaching language and used in that mode for many years before it was implemented).
The high school graduate should have a good basic understanding of computers, computer systems, Boolean
algebra, machine level programming, and high level programming. He should be proficient in one programming
language.
Mathematics - should be integrated into the other studies and supplemented by math only sessions. The
computer should be used to select problems and guide the student through them. Analysis programs in the
hypertext teacher can feed back to the teacher the areas in which the student is having problems and needs
personal attention.
The high school graduate should be proficient in mathematics through first year calculus.
Mechanics, electrical, chemical - studies of how things work and work together should start very early.
Building blocks and erector sets in kindergarten (no more entertainment with paper dolls and glue) start little
minds thinking about mechanical things. The elementary building sets gradually give way to several years of the
study of mechanisms. Starting with levers and gears and gradually increasing in complexity through cams and
lobes at about the fourth grade. All these things need hands-on teaching aids. In early high school, the student
should start learning about steam, internal combustion, and jet engines. In the senior year, the final mechanical
study should be in rocket propulsion. In parallel with the mechanical studies, the early student in about the third
grade should start with a battery, a resister, a voltmeter and ohm's law. By graduation he should know how an
electric motor works, a bit about power transmission and distribution and understand the principles of television
and nuclear power generation. Physics and chemistry are integrated in the same manner along with these studies.
The high school graduate should understand how the things he will live with work. He will feel comfortable and
confident in a high tech world. There is no need to bring him to a design or research level, but he should know by
this time if he is interested in pursuing one of these topics as his career.
Human cultures, history and forms of government - These are the controversial subjects, the hot spots.
Knowledge about these subjects is sorely needed. If the matter is taught as fact to gain knowledge then they
The Curriculum
should be covered thoroughly. If the history, for example, is going to be one written to meet social, cultural, or
political goals, skipping it would be better. A lie is a lie no matter the reason spoken. If all human cultures are
described and objectively compared, it becomes valuable knowledge, needed by everyone. Still, if every
descriptive point is used to pound home the worthlessness and brutality of our current and historical culture, then
skipping those classes is better. If the study of the various governments and their comparisons is factual, then it
becomes valuable information for every student. If the descriptive terms are to be emotional, sneering, slurs
against our form of government, then skip the teaching of the subject. If these classes are taught, and taught
wrong, we have completely negated the value of this whole thing. Might as well go back to the high school
graduate who can't read his own diploma. We may have discovered cause and effect by making those statements.
It is my suggestion that we do our best to put together a hypertext series that is scrupulously objective, and make
those texts available in total to the public on an Internet link, so that nothing is hidden. Forbid any teacher from
lecturing. If it is insisted that we let people teach these subjects, then I suggest that such lectures be recorded,
digitized and sent to the hypertext teacher for software analysis for the key words that would show bias of the
teacher.
We could lose the whole ball game right here, by allowing dogma and bigotry to destroy the objectivity.
Forbidden in public schools: the teaching of sports, art, drama, music, or philosophy of any sort. No fiction is to
be taught anywhere in the educational system. If individuals feel the need, they may pursue such reading off
school hours, and we encourage them to do so. Nevertheless, if the camel's nose gets under the edge of the tent,
the whole animal is soon inside
Comments by readers and discussion

COMMENT: Only a fool would suggest that teachers should not lecture.
The change we want to make in this new culture founded on provable knowledge, is to remove our dependence
on dogma. All of the teachers are intelligent people, they learned their lessons well. If their specialty was in a
factual field, I am sure they learned that well and that is useful knowledge to bring to the students. The courses in
education, however, are based on dogma. And they learned those well. All of the other courses are largely
dogma. All of this dogma appears reasonable, everyone in school and in their peer group agrees with it and the
dogma appeals to the instincts as well. To try to shift beliefs that are buried this deep is a real problem. But we
must not carry this forward into generations to come. The teachers have been taught what to believe and it is only
natural that they should wish to teach their students what to believe. We must avoid this at all costs. We want the
students to be taught real knowledge. Let them synthesize their own beliefs. If we give them the right
information, they'll come up with the right answers (but not necessarily the ones you like).
All of you agree that it was the right thing to do to remove religious dogma from the schools. Then why can't you
see that it is just as reasonable to remove all other dogmas, and other forms of fiction, as well?
The Curriculum
COMMENT: Why are you against the arts and sports in school? These have been traditional parts of education
for centuries.
ANSWER: I think arts and sports are wonderful. I think they should be encouraged in every child. Every
community should have a community center where such things are nurtured. But right now we have an
educational crisis and a cultural crises. We need to take every nickel of our public money and invest it in an
education for every child in our country. We need to make sure that every minute that we teach them, it is
provable knowledge, there isn't time for anything else. In olden days they had to fill the student's time with
something, all of the earth's knowledge was a one semester course. Not now! These students are now leaving
high school destitute of knowledge. They need to learn things that are useful, not how to shoot a basket or play
rap music. Anything that detracts or distracts must be removed from the schools.
COMMENT: I can't believe that you'd want to eliminate philosophy and literature from the schools.
ANSWER: Any of it that's fiction, you can bet I do. And if I could shut down television and comic books, I'd do
it in a minute. I'd like to ask you how much philosophy and literature the modern high school graduate knows
now! Talk to one of them and you'll see that I'm not asking you to eliminate much. But I am asking you to give
these young people a fighting chance in a world suddenly complex, with too much real knowledge to ever cover
in a lifetime, much less in preparatory school.
COMMENT: You seem to take a radical empiricist position that nothing is real unless scientifically provable.
ANSWER: Not at all, there is a lot of truth in the dogma now being taught as knowledge in our schools.
Collective man tends to be wise. The problem is that the dogma contains both truth and falsehood and there is no
way to determine which parts are true and which are false. From the cultural result of what we teach, one must
assume that those parts which are false are also quite damaging.
However, there is more provable knowledge available than we can hope to cover in a lifetime and the amount is
growing daily. So why not end the dogma, both religious and ideological, and start fresh on a firmer foundation
to seek the real truth?
It will mean starting all over in such fields as psychology and strengthening the fields of subjects such as
anthropology, but a lot of subject matter is archaic and will not fit in education for an intellectual culture.
COMMENT: The education you propose sounds very sterile and one dimensional, and is unlikely to gain many
adherents unless you modify your position regarding the teaching of the arts, the humanities, literature, etc.,
which are essential components for educating the "whole" person.
ANSWER: How good are those "whole" people that you are turning out today? What are they good for? If they
can't make their own way, what good is literature, art and humanities to them? The drop-out rate of today is
The Curriculum
extremely high, in spite of coddling. Why? Because they see no value in what they are being taught. Make
education meaningful to them and they couldn't be run off with a baseball bat.
You speak of art, humanities and literature. Have you looked at any of the pictures from the Hubble? From the
shuttle? When you look at a swelling cumulus, do you feel the dynamics in your heart? Have you seen the layout
art for the Pentium? Do you understand what causes the ocean tide? Or why it rises under a hurricane? Do you
look at a rock and feel its history in the earth? Do you know why mothers love their babies? Do you look at the
sky on a dark night and understand what you see? Do you feel the majesty of the universe and the joy in being
allowed a part in it? The beauty of this universe is limited only by our ability to learn and comprehend.
For some incredible reason it has become fashionable in our culture to consider anyone working with scientific
knowledge to be some sort of half-animal, incapable of the "good" passions of man. Somehow a man becomes
less of a man if he doesn't swoon over rap music, pot and some idiot's graffiti on a piece of canvas. I like the
artistry of all man, but only art which requires skill, training, and dedication. When I see skill and knowledge in
an artifact, I marvel at man's capability whether in a Rembrandt (a work by one man) or the impeller system in a
modern jet engine (a polished masterpiece of precision surfaces in shining metal and the product of the
cooperative creativity of thousands).
COMMENT: The result of what you propose would be a society like that portrayed in Fritz Lang's 1920's
classic movie, "Metropolis." You ought to see it sometime. It portrays a society of heartless robots tending to the
machines which are owned by the 'masters' of the society.
People ignorant in science, such as those who made this movie and who believe its message, have always
maintained that science is a vampire sucking the blood of humanity. Somehow if knowledge comes from science
it is not fit for the "civilized" man. If a deliberately destructive malcontent (such as Marx) mouths nonsense, he is
somehow sanctified and followed.
Real knowledge takes effort to learn. One cannot learn it by merely reading a book. Many fear that they are
incapable of learning it. These often seek other fields that do not require as much time and effort. They then
justify their path as the "whole" education, or the "civilized" education. It always pained me to see the effete man
wringing his hands in mock agony and giggling, "but I just can't understand calculus." It's far easier to deny,
deride and demonize than to perform.
Let's review the place of art, sculpture, literature and music in education. There is little evidence in the 4.5
million years of man's development that any of these flowered before the advent of Homo sapiens sapiens,
somewhat less than two hundred thousand years ago.
1. Art started with graffiti on the walls of caves. The outline of a hand traced in charcoal from an ancient fire is
classical. Art probably lived through the ages as decorations on clothing, tools and weapons. Fine paintings came
within the last few hundred years, when the materials became available (developed by scientists). These required
great skill and experience with the materials in addition to the creativity in the artist.
Feces on a dinner plate, the American flag in a toilet, a crucifix submerged in a glass of urine are all now
considered fine art by those who are "civilized." Oddly these perversions of art, all deliberately offensive to large
The Curriculum
cultural groups, are defended by men who claim the high ground on lacking bigotry and insist that they are the
only ones who are sensitive and tolerant of others.
Meanwhile scientific artists design wondrous electronic and mechanical machines that allow all man to travel
easier, see farther into space, enjoy wide communications with each other, grow copious food supplies, and live
longer with better medical care. But because their art produces useful things, it is no longer art.
2. Ancient man saw the rock and carved from it an image of himself. Within the last 3000 or so years he uses
marble and granite to carve wondrous likenesses. He used bronze foundries to make huge works of art.
The sculptor of today builds from tin, iron, toilets, and stacks of old automobiles. He prides himself on crude
welding and finish. His mechanicals rarely work well. He is also considered by the "civilized" man to be an
artist.
Meanwhile scientific sculptors refine the minerals from the ground, shape them with skill, talent and knowledge
and build one of the most magnificent works of art the world has ever seen. It's called the shuttle.
Somehow the modern "sophisticated" man feels that art, no matter the skill and talent required for its production,
or its finished beauty, is somehow distasteful if it also renders service. This is intellectual perversion at its worst.
3. Literature started with stories around the campfires. Such knowledge as they had, or thought they had in those
days, was passed down from generation to generation from memory to memory, usually in the form of stories or
chants. Religion and philosophy were also transmitted in the same way.
Modern literature is no more than an expansion of this ancient practice, but now in print or on a floppy disk. Man
learns from his input, reading being one of the best input methods. The various forms of literature are interesting
to read but an extremely poor way to gain knowledge. Fiction and philosophy should be avoided since any
knowledge gained thereby is highly questionable. Literature makes good intellectual recreational material, as
long as the reader is careful to discount what he reads.
4. Music began as evening entertainment around the campfire. Sometimes it was used as a background for
chants. It hasn't really changed much since. It reached its peak in artistry a century ago. The dynamic and pitch
range of the orchestras of that period filled the entire sound spectrum that man can encompass. The utilization of
harmonics and variable cadence produced rich and interesting sound.
By contrast, modern music is monotone, fixed cadence and loud. Rap is a throwback, surely dating to pre-erectus
times. Still, the "whole" modern man considers it art. And most modern music is synthetic, produced on
machines designed by science.
COMMENT: There is much more to education than the understandings and skills necessary to perform on the
job.
ANSWER: You are absolutely right. Education needs to cover far more than the essentials of existing. Only
when man understands the universe and where and how he fits in it will he ever feel at ease and confident as he
The Curriculum
approaches life. We disagree only in educational content.
COMMENT:This - - leads me to bring up your argument about restricting education to the hard sciences. The
weakness in that position is that it ignores the needs of children for aids to growth and maturity. Some of that
process includes something extra beyond the study of facts. Receptors into the brain do include senses such as
ordinary touch. Again, the missing element is interactive feedback.
ANSWER: It is totally beyond me why there is a widespread belief that truth cannot be taught with the same
sensitivity, empathy, kindness, consideration, etc. as fiction, fantasy, opinion, conjecture and dogma.
Socialist Principles.
Whether in government, commerce or industry, the end product of any monopoly will increase
exponentially in cost while decreasing exponentially in value. Socialism is the mother of all monopolies.
One management system covers all three. The people who run a monopoly live high, but the end result of any
monopoly is bankruptcy. When the public can no longer endure, neither ballot boxes nor courts can be used in a
socialist country to bring about change, since both are under the same management system as the problem.
How well does man fit in the culture called socialism. We use the Socialist Party principles as a means of
examination. Bold type will be the quotation from the principles. Italics will be our discussion.
Socialism As Radical Democracy

The SP Statement of Principles
The Socialist Party strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own
control -- a non-racist, classless, feminist, socialist society in which people cooperate at work, at home, and
in the community.
Most people will cooperate, regardless of the form of government. Many will not, regardless of the form of
government, but to expect all people to be non-racist, classless, and feminist is pushing everyone into the same
mold. This subtracts from individual freedom. Many people rebel from being taught how to think or what to
believe. A man may be racist and chauvinistic but still act properly. The socialist thought control is repulsive to
any free man. Almost all people, on the other hand, may be taught how to act. Some men can live as herd
animals. Many can't. The 'movers and shakers' will either take charge of the movement (and destroy the classless
objective-the usual case), or be criminal against it (most crimes perpetrated in socialist governments are by the
officials themselves).
Socialism is not mere government ownership, a welfare state, or a repressive bureaucracy.
file:///C|/onelifebook/social/princ.html (1 of 10)1/25/2007 4:51:20 PM
This is a denial of that which is inevitable in socialism.

Socialism is a new social and economic order in which workers and consumers control production and
community residents control their neighborhoods, homes, and schools.
There is no better consumer control of the production of goods than the use of supply and demand. All other
methods run the risk of the wrong goods being produced. Having the workers control the production work in the
plant is not unusual, having them decide what to produce and how much is idiocy. Only the market place can do
that well. The idea of community residents controlling their neighborhoods, homes and schools is not unique to
the socialist form of government, and is a good idea regardless of the form of government.
The production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few.
There is no better way to produce goods for the consumer than by catering to the consumers demands. There is
no better way to control the costs of those goods than by having many compete in producing these goods. Free
enterprise provides both of these advantages. The profit made by those who produce in free enterprise is far less
than the amount wasted in producing them under a bureaucracy (or the amount stolen by the inevitable corrupt
official).
Socialism produces a constantly renewed future by not plundering the resources of the earth.
Easy to say, hard to do. Nobody is going to solve this problem without population control, socialist or not.
Under capitalist and "Communist" states, people have little control over fundamental areas of their lives.
The capitalist system forces workers to sell their abilities and skills to the few who own the workplaces,
profit from these workers' labor, and use the government to maintain their privileged position. Under
Communist states, decisions are made by Communist Party officials, the bureaucracy and the military.
The inevitable product of each system is a class society with gross inequality of privileges, a draining of the
productive wealth and goods of the society into military purposes, environmental pollution, and war in
which workers are compelled to fight other workers.
This is called "Marxist rhetoric". Don't solve the problem, point the finger and call names. Either of these
systems described, and including socialism, can be made to work. The meek and incompetent will live the same
in all three. The difference is that only free enterprise gives the freedom and the opportunity for the hyperactive
ones to vent their energy in a constructive way, one which benefits all of us. Under socialism, these must be
brain-washed into plodding along. Under communism, they either become party leaders or they are shot.
Besides, you people should read your Marx: once socialism is established, communism is inevitable.
People across the world need to cast off the systems which oppress them, and build a new world fit for all
humanity.
Amen! The oppression of the people of the world of today is the result of cultures based on instinct and dogma.
Remove these shackles! Give every human being a chance at the brass ring! Teach them only provable
knowledge! Let them learn what their true position is in this universe! Teach them how to live within a culture,
not how to destroy it! Hand them the challenge! Then stand back and let them succeed or fail! My bet is that few
will fail. Socialist regimentation is not the answer.

Democratic revolutions are needed to dissolve the power now exercised by the few who control great
wealth and the government.
To shift all power, both economic and political, to the same group of leaders does not solve this problem. It, in
fact, gives a monopoly to the government, one which has no system of accountability. Under a democratic freeenterprise system, most ranking economic and political leaders are the result of a merit system. Under a
socialistic system, all leaders are the result of a political system. Since the system is classless, there is only one
party. Since there is only one party, there can be no democracy. Trading the problem we have for a worse one is
no solution. Abolishing inheritance and gifts within families is a solution worth considering, but the loss of
incentive might result in a loss in production greater than allowing some to be born with a silver spoon.
Confiscation of all private property is certainly the greatest disincentive that can be imagined, especially when
political figures always manage to form another (and somehow exempt) class.
By revolution we mean a radical and fundamental change in the structure and quality of economic,
political, and personal relations. The building of socialism requires widespread understanding and
participation, and will not be achieved by an elite working "on behalf of" the people. Radical democracy is
the cornerstone not only of our socialism, but also of our strategy. Here are the main features of each:
I get a real sinking feeling reading this. I'll take the freedom of free enterprise any old day. I'm willing to sink or
swim on my own ability. I found the competition of life exhilarating. I worked hard and enjoyed every minute of
it. I had many more failures than successes. That made the successes feel even better. If I had the chance, I'd do
it again. Take that away from man and it deprives him of a lot that is alive. I shudder to think of man returning to
the herd status of the africanus herbivore.
.
SOCIALIST SOCIETY
Freedom & Equality
Democratic socialism is a political and economic system with freedom and equality for all, so that people
may develop to their fullest potential in harmony with others. The Socialist Party is committed to full
freedom of speech, assembly, press, and religion, and to a multi-party system. We are dedicated to the
abolition of male supremacy and class society, and to the elimination of all forms of oppression, including
those based on race, national origin, age, sexual preferences, and disabling conditions.
None of these things are problems solved uniquely by socialism. All except the classless society are currently
covered by our law. That factor has never been done in any culture. The Chinese even tried to remove rank from
its military. The result was a disaster. Is a classless society wise? Will you make the bum dress up? Or will you
require the rest of us to dress down? There is a lie here also. If a society is classless, how can it embrace
multiple religions and political parties?
Production For Use, Not For Profit
In a socialist system the people own and control the means of production and distribution through
democratically controlled public agencies, cooperatives, or other collective groups. The primary goal of
economic activity is to provide the necessities of life, including food, shelter, health care, education, child
care, cultural opportunities, and social services.
Since there is no incentive for efficiency in any bureaucracy, it becomes evermore inefficient. Socialist
bureaucracies are even worse. Since no one is paid extra for sticking his neck out, no one does. When the
government is your landlord, don't look for a smiling face when you complain about maintenance. Don't look for
any maintenance either. A food supermarket has no place in socialism.
A socialist culture provides the bare essentials and nothing else. I'd have to give up that fancy motor home of
mine. You guys with the boats better get ready to turn them over to the government. Those bigwigs will need
recreation. Forget the trip south, this winter, the Comrade in Charge of Recreation For Tired Workers may have
a little trouble getting around to you. Worst of all, Drambuie would be available only on the black market, and
you'd need to sneak it into the house in a brown paper bag. The mid-Victorians were a wild bunch compared to
these couch potatoes.
Why provide child care when the mother is paid the same to stay home with her children? Why bother with
education if all of the jobs are interchangeable and assignable and pay the same?
.
These social services include care for the chronically ill, persons with mental disabilities, the infirm and
the aging. Planning takes place at the community, regional, and national levels, and is determined
democratically with the input of workers, consumers, and the public to be served.
Same layers of bureaucrats, even more inefficiency. One problem with socialism is that there is no way to
measure the government's cut. They get it all first. At least we have a tax bill that we can bitch about.
Full Employment
Under welfare capitalism, a reserve pool of people is kept under-educated, under-skilled and unemployed,
largely along racial and gender lines, to exert pressure on those who are employed and on organized labor.
The employed pay for this knife that capitalism holds to their throats by being taxed to fund welfare
programs to maintain the unemployed and their children. In this way the working class is divided against
itself; those with jobs and those without are separated by resentment and fear. In socialism, full
employment is realized for everyone who wants to work.
We established welfare because you people called us heartless, insensitive and uncaring. Now you claim the only
reason we did it was to take advantage of them. It's damned if you do and damned if you don't.
In political parlance, this paragraph is called a spin. The fact is, under our free-enterprise system, we wish those
lazy bums would go to school and learn how to do something besides smoke pot and make babies. We have real
work for them to do. Unless the socialists also allow pimping and drug running, they won't have any jobs these
people can do either. I notice that China doesn't have any unemployment. You either work where you are told on
the outside or you work in prison. (Come to think of it, that idea is only half bad). If a government is going to
guarantee full employment then it must reserve the right to tell the worker which job he gets. Early on in each
individual's life, the electorate decides who goes on to school and who gets the lifetime job cleaning out the
stables. What happened to individual freedom? One more thing: Have you noticed that we have a six per cent
unemployment rate and a twenty something welfare rate. Does that mean that most of those bums are not out
looking for work?
Worker & Community Control
Democracy in daily life is the core of our socialism. Public ownership becomes a fraud if decisions are
made by distant bureaucrats or authoritarian managers. In socialist society power resides in workermanaged and cooperative enterprises. Community-based cooperatives help provide the flexibility and
innovation required in a dynamic socialist economy. Workers have the right to form unions freely, and to
strike and engage in other forms of job actions.
Making a living in this world is hard. One must be efficient in the expenditure of his resources and the
accumulation of income. Free enterprise requires a lot of work and worry. But it works and works well. You'll
notice that these guys don't worry much about efficiency. They never mention the work. It's always the benefits
that the individual gets, not the goods that the individual must produce. They rely on the division of all wealth.
They don't seem to realize that dividing up zilch is still hunger city. Their entire social, industrial, commercial
and governmental structure is political. Can you imagine what would happen to Ford if they were turned over to
a bunch of politicians? Three model T's per month in no time.
Worker and community control make it possible to combine life at work, home and in the community into
a meaningful whole for adults and children. Girls and boys are encouraged to grow up able to choose
freely the shape of their lives and work without gender and racial stereotyping. Children are provided
with the care, goods and services, and support that they need, and are protected from abuse.
These are lofty goals, goals more apt to be attainable in a rich society than in a poor one. Most of the people of
the world would love to trade places with our poorest. Equal opportunity builds wealth. Equality forces all to the
lowest common denominator.
Ecological Harmony
A socialist society carefully plans its way of life and technology to be a harmonious part of our natural
environment. This planning takes place on regional, national, and international levels and covers the
production of energy, the use of scarce resources, land-use planning, the prevention of pollution and the
preservation of wildlife. The cleanup of the contaminated environment and the creation of a nuclear-free
world are among the first tasks of a socialist society.
That careful central planning scares me. More bureaucrats than in the pentagon? Nobody will ever get in
balance with nature without population control, and don't write-off nuclear fuels. It needs development, but
eventually it's the way to go. Here again, though, fewer people means lower ecological costs.
.
SOCIALIST STRATEGY
Socialist Feminism
Socialist feminism confronts the common root of sexism, racism, and classism: the determination of a life
of oppression or privilege based on accidents of birth or circumstances. Socialist feminism is an inclusive
way of creating social change. We value synthesis and cooperation rather than conflict and competition.
A color blind society is a must, no matter the form of government. I don't know what they mean by "social
feminism", and I'm afraid to ask, but competition is not necessarily conflict. Teamwork while working hard is the
old tribal way of getting things done. Getting it done better than the tribe next door adds spice.
We work against the exploitation of women who live with lower wages, inferior working conditions, and
subordination in the home and in politics.
Regardless of the form of government, these undesirable things must be eliminated. As a matter of interest:
Where do you find one of those wives that you can subordinate in the home? I haven't seen one yet. Mine helps
me a lot in deciding what I ought to be doing. Back in the old days it was a man's world, but he did what his wife
told him to do.
Socialists struggle for the full freedom of women and men to control their own bodies and determine their
own sexual orientation. Women's independent organizations and caucuses are essential to full liberation,
both before and after the transformation to socialism. Women will define their own liberation.
I wouldn't touch this paragraph with a ten foot pole.
Liberation of Oppressed Groups
Bigotry and discrimination help the ruling class divide, exploit, and abuse workers here and in the Third
World. The Socialist Party works to eliminate prejudice and discrimination in all its forms. We recognize
the right of self-defense in the face of attacks; we also support non-violent direct action in combatting
oppression. People of color, lesbians and gays, and other oppressed groups need independent organization
to fight oppression. Racism will not be eliminated merely by eliminating capitalism.
None of these factors have anything to do with the form of government. This is merely (red) flag waving. That
last statement is pure hogwash. Racism is instinctive, of tribal origin, and has nothing to do with economic or
cultural structure. It can be minimized by building one big tribe with a common culture. Until then we must not
allow overt racism and be strict about it.
International Solidarity & Peace
People around the world have more in common with each other than with their rulers. We condemn war,
preparation for war, and the militaristic culture because they play havoc with people's lives and divert
resources from constructive social projects. Militarism also concentrates even greater power in the hands
of the few, the powerful and the violent. We align with no nation, but only with working people
throughout the world.
Take this attitude and you'll soon be working for the first little shirt-tail dictator that comes along with a
machine-gun. Nobody fights wars for fun. I was in WWII, the full four years. You'd now be making sauerkraut
and shouting "Sig Heil" if we hadn't taken them on. And so would your communist Russian friends.
Internal Democracy
Socialism and democracy are one and indivisible. The Socialist Party is democratic, with its structure and
practices visible and accessible to all members.
Socialism combined with democracy is unstable. They may promise it, but they can't allow it. If they did,
everybody would immediately vote himself a big salary and annual 52 week vacations. We are having that
problem in this country now. Total up all of the votes of those on the dole and on the government payroll, and
you'll see why our debt is rising and the size of the government keeps growing as more and more socialist
programs are being instituted. The producers in this country are now a minority, and we lose at the polls, every
time.
We reject dogma and promote internal debate. The Socialist Party is a "multi-tendency" organization. We
orient ourselves around our principles and develop a common program, but our members have various
underlying philosophies and views of the world. Solidarity within the party comes from the ability of those
with divergent views on some issues to engage in a collective struggle towards social revolution.
The entire movement is based on dogma. The only scientific basis for the formation of a culture and its attendant
government form, is a study of genetics and evolution. These people dream about what people are. A look at man
and his development will tell you what a man is. And that last part about listening to anyone else is pure hokum.
They are outraged with any views not their own.
We strive to develop feminist practice within the party.
I'll say one thing, these guys are really out to get the female vote.
Cultural Freedom
Art is an integral part of daily life. It should not be treated as just a commodity produced by the activity of
an elite group. Socialists work to create opportunities for participation in art and cultural activities. We
work for the restoration and preservation of the history and culture of working people, women, and
oppressed minorities.
Sounds good to me, but why is it unique to the socialist process?
The Personal as Political
Living under domination and struggling against it exact a personal toll. Socialists regard the distortion of
personal life and interpersonal relations under capitalism as a political matter. Socialism must ultimately
improve life; this cannot be accomplished by demanding that personal lives be sacrificed for the
movement. We cherish the right of personal privacy and the enrichment of culture through diversity.
That last sentence shows the hypocrisy in socialism. The ultimate goal of socialism is a classless society, one in
which all are equal. How, then, can they embrace diversity in anything? If a person does something different
from another, they are no longer equal. They may be paid equally and they can be defined as equal, but they are
not. The fact remains, no two human beings on this earth are equal. Why try to force them to be so? If you do
not, then classes naturally form. Classes are inevitable in man, even in a socialist culture. The first thing that a
man learns is how to classify. He spends his life classifying everything around him. Remove that ability and he
ceases thinking-exactly what the socialists want.
Electoral Action
Socialists participate in the electoral process to present socialist alternatives. The Socialist Party does not
divorce electoral politics from other strategies for basic change. While a minority, we fight for progressive
changes compatible with a socialist future. When a majority we will rapidly introduce those changes which
constitute socialism, with priority to the elimination of the power of big business through public ownership
and workers' control.
Big business is already almost universally owned by the public. Buy a few shares and become an owner. Go to
stock owners meetings and make a nuisance of yourself. You don't like working for someone else? Open your
own business. And don't fool yourself, under socialism it will be the party bosses who run things (and rake a
personal chunk off the top). And let the greedy ones own property, if they want to, as long as they pay their own
way.
By participating in local government, socialists can support movements of working people and make
improvements that illustrate the potential of public ownership. We support electoral action independent of
the capitalist-controlled two-party system.
I big to differ. We don't have a two-party capitalist-controlled system. We have a pinko party called the
republicans and a bright red one called the democrats. Both are to the left of Yeltsin and they closely straddle
Castro. Both are in a race in driving us toward communism. Nobody owns property in this country any more. We
rent it from the government (try not paying your taxes and see how fast you are evicted). We also don't earn
salaries, our government skims it first then allows us to keep the bare amount to hold body and soul together so
we may work another year for them (and all your socialist money transfer projects). This is exactly the same way
the royalty worked with the serfs in the middle ages. Our socialist government often, in its socialist zeal,
oversteps and kills the goose. Even now, communism is barely a proclamation away. If unannounced, no one
would know the difference. Perhaps it has already happened.
Democratic Revolution From Below
No oppressed group has ever been liberated except by its own organized efforts to overthrow its
oppressors. A society based on radical democracy, with power exercised through people's organizations,
requires a socialist transformation from below. People's organizations cannot be created by legislation,
nor can they spring into being only on the eve of a revolution. They can grow only in the course of popular
struggles, especially those of women, labor, and minority groups. The Socialist Party works to build these
organizations democratically.
Wait a minute. I'm a he-honky. Any room in there for me? They keep throwing that word "democratic" around.
It's a feeling type word, like motherhood. It is used to balance the sting of the word "socialism." Name a socialist
country that is democratic. They may vote, but with only one name on the ballot. They may like a multiple party
system, but they never get one. They may deny the military, but it's the guns in a socialist country that hold it
together.
The process of struggle profoundly shapes the ends achieved. Our tactics in the struggle for radical
democratic change reflect our ultimate goal of a society founded on principles of egalitarian, nonexploitative and non-violent relations among all people and between all peoples.
Now if we can convince all of the aggressive foreign countries and the criminals in our own country to go along
with this lofty plan, we can shut down all of those nasty military and police organization.
To be free we must create new patterns for our lives and live in new ways in the midst of a society that
does not understand and is often hostile to new, better modes of life. Our aim is the creation of a new
social order, a society in which the commanding value is the infinite preciousness of every woman, man
and child.
How nice. Could I please ask about the rights of the unborn child?
CONCLUSION
Socialism is a con game. You take from here and you put it there. It works on the order of the chain letter. If
everybody does what he is supposed to do, we all are rich. The problem is that people rarely do what they are
supposed to do, unless it is to their individual advantage to do so. Who is going to empty the cess pools in their
society? There are a lot of jobs that are not done for love. I'm an energetic guy, but if you convince me that
my rewards will be the same if I loaf or work, I'd be another beer and tv bum. The Russians had a saying in
the old Communist days: "They make believe that they are paying us, and we make believe we work."
Socialism appears to be a culture of losers, by losers and for losers. It is for people who do not wish to practice
self-discipline, who do not wish to confront life and give it battle. It is sought by people who do not want
responsibility, especially for their own actions. It is for people who want others to provide for them and control
their every thought and action. It is the culture for those who see no need for individual dignity, drive, or
purpose and who believe there is no other purpose for living than living. They would rather have everyone be
a bum than to have someone with drive and purpose call anyone a bum. It would make a herd animal again of
a proud and capable creature.
By unchaining man and allowing him to compete in the game of life, free enterprise emphasizes man's
productivity. Such nations are wealthy (USA, Japan, Germany, England, France). They'd be a lot wealthier if
they weren't so socialist.
In making man dependent and subservient, Marxism (socialism, liberalism) emphasizes man's needs. Such
nations are destitute (China, Russia (recovering), North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba). China is doing a lot better
now that it has opened up a little free enterprise.
BUT IF YOU'RE STILL INTERESTED HERE'S WHERE YOU GET THE ENTRANCE PAPERS
Socialist Party USA

516 W. 25th St. #404
New York, NY 10001
(212) 691-0776
Lots of socialist links.
Socialism and Education

The history behind how socialism entered and became dominant in our education system is not well publicized.
All modern publishers are graduates of liberal arts colleges, the stronghold of the movement, and tend not to
publish about such matters.
It began with a student rebellion. The rebellion of students against authority has been chronicled since the days
of ancient Greece. In more recent history, this type of rebellion has occurred periodically worldwide for the past
two hundred years. The students rioting in Korea are frightening to watch on television, throwing bottles of
flaming gasoline on the police. Tiananmen square was a heart-breaker, as those in authority showed no mercy in
settling who was still in charge. It has become clear that German university students consider active protest as
part of their curriculum. Only in America have protesters against authority been so thorough in their rejection of
it. The protesters of the sixties and early seventies extended their rejection into personal debasement, deliberately
refusing even personal hygiene and sacrificing their personal dignity through gutter language, obscene literature,
and deliberately promiscuous (sometimes public) sex to demonstrate their contempt for the authority of the state,
school, church, and family. "Don't trust anyone over thirty" was one of their mottoes.
This rebellion was generated and led by the children of middle-class and wealthy white America. It was to grow
and then splinter into other movements.
There is no particular beginning incident (or "happening" as it was called in those days) that started the scene of
events which steamrollered into the conditions of today. One could point toward many events spanning half a
century and say, "There, that's where it started." Many other points in space and time would be as valid. Klaus
Mehnert, a German-American historian, selected the first public reading of Allen Ginsberg's poem "Howl" as the
beginning. That's as good a place to start as any.
"Howl" was recited by Ginsberg in the "Six Gallery." This was a gallery for modern art in San Francisco where
the art of six artists was normally on display. There was an audience of a hundred or so people there that evening
in October of 1955. Gary Snyder and Jack Kerouac were among those listening. The novels of Kerouac, the
writings of Snyder, and the poems of Ginsberg were to have a profound effect on activists for all causes, both in
the United States and in Europe, for many years. Kerouac had already written his On the Road, although it had
not yet been published. It, along with his The Dharma Bums was to become required reading for anyone in "the
movement." When On the Road was published, it received wide acclaim, often compared to the early work of
Hemingway. Riding on his sudden popularity, Kerouac quickly wrote seven other books along the same vein.
Snyder, on the other hand, was enthralled with Asiatic religions and primitive cultures. He often suggested that
man should use the society of the pre-discovery American Indian as a cultural model.
While drugs, arrogant behavior, promiscuous sex, and other forms of open rebellion occupied the white students,
the next five years also brought black issues into the limelight. The Supreme Court issued a decision against
segregation in schools in 1954, leading to the school integration battle in Little Rock in 1957. The Supreme
file:///C|/onelifebook/social/soced.html (1 of 6)1/25/2007 4:51:21 PM
Court came back with a decision in 1958 forbidding segregation in railway stations. It was on 1 February 1960
that modern-day activism began. Four black students entered the Woolworth store in Greensboro, North Carolina
and sat at a lunch counter marked "For White's Only." They were not served. Other black students joined and the
first sit-in became history. They received extensive, almost overwhelming, television coverage, a fact that was
not wasted on the multitude of white students who were smarting under "oppressive authority." Here was a
chance to fight back, with a cause that was proven to be photogenic. The television coverage would allow them
to reach the working people of the country. Marxist doctrine assured them that these workers were only waiting
for an opportunity to rise up in a long overdue revolution against capitalism, believed by the students to be the
root of the stifling authoritarianism which they felt was so pervasive in America.
The National Student Association (NSA) urged its members in 500 colleges to organize demonstrations and
boycotts of the Woolworth stores. The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) decided that
nonviolence was to be the key-word. During the next year more than 3,000 white activist students received jail
sentences, only a small percentage of those who had participated. They had, however, been successful. The
pressure of their actions along with the omnipresent television coverage had desegregated many establishments.
Next came the "Freedom Rides," started in May 1961. Two whites were murdered as a result of this action.
New black leaders began to emerge: Stokely Carmichael, Rap Brown, and Malcolm X were dominant. The Watts
district in Los Angeles exploded. The Black Panthers were formed. Black rhetoric hardened.
The Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) became active. Tom Hayden was a leader in this organization,
which was an outgrowth of the League for Industrial Democracy (LID) founded by Upton Sinclair in 1905. By
the summer of 1963, they had issued four papers: The Port Huron Statement, Students and Social Action,
Students and Labor, and America and the New Era. These four papers encompass the ideology of the SDS of
those years. They claimed that America was being victimized by their leadership, found fault with American
society, and complained of the Democratic Party and the labor unions. The Republican Party was not mentioned,
being beneath contempt. SDS then approached the blacks in the North, trying to do in the North what the SNCC
had done in the South. They envisioned joining with the blacks and labor to form a Marxist revolutionary force
which could prevail. Revolution was the stated aim. They were shocked when they were rebuffed by both. There
was too much friction between the blacks and the whites for an alliance to work and the laborers did not trust
these weak-looking young men with the incomprehensible jargon and big mouths.
In 1964 the emphasis shifted to Berkeley. President Clark Kerr, himself a former LID member who should have
known better, issued a statement intending to define and broaden the scope of universities required for the U.S.
to be competitive in an ever more knowledge-hungry world. He called for a "multiversity concept" which
effectively changed the university into a "knowledge industry," an instrument of national purpose and a center of
knowledge for providing trained men for every need. He saw increasingly specific controls from and more active
involvement by the government. It was a red flag waved in front of an already angry bull. Brad Cleveland, a
graduate student, angrily addressed a letter to the undergraduate student body (from D'Souza):
"The multiversity is not an educational center, but a highly efficient industry: it produces bombs, other war
machines, a few token "peaceful" machines, and enormous numbers of safe, highly skilled, and respectable
automatons to meet the immediate needs of business and government. This institution, affectionately called 'Cal'
by many of you does not deserve a response of loyalty and allegiance from you. There is only one proper
response to Berkeley from undergraduates: that you organize and split this campus wide open!"
The Marxist influence is seen in the wording of this proclamation. Marxist doctrine claims that all forms of
social discipline, including religion and education, are for the purpose of controlling the public for exploitation
by the ruling class. The same doctrine claims warfare as one of the tools of exploitation. As with Marx,
Cleveland calls for revolution as the means of correction.
The student body needed little prodding. There was a protest march of five-hundred students on the dean's office
shortly after, followed a month later by an eight-hundred sit-in at the administration building. Six-hundred police
were dispatched to clear the hall on orders of Governor Edmund Brown. The Free Speech Movement (FSM) was
formed with student Mario Savio as head. The police action aroused students who had not been involved before.
The revolt spread. Kerr eventually resigned.
Why did these students rebel? In retrospect it appears to be a revolt without a cause. Living conditions were
excellent. The campus is beautiful. The curriculum and the teaching staff were outstanding. The young people in
the movement were from middle class or wealthy families. No one pleaded poverty or hunger. No one claimed
incompetence in the faculty. In foreign countries the students under oppressive governments protest for freedom,
or if under a corrupt regime they protest for a change in the head of state. In China there was a revolt by students
over living conditions and quality of food. The demands at Berkeley were for inconsequential, almost childish,
things. They demanded more freedom to cohabit but the school's very few rules had not been rigidly enforced.
And they demanded abolition of grades and exams. It appeared to be a generalized rebellion against society.
The reason for the revolt was so obscure that those in the faculty could not fathom it, though among their ranks
were some of the finest minds in psychology and psychiatry in the country. The well known sociologist and
philosopher, Lewis Feuer, resigned in disgust and moved to Canada. He wrote a book The Conflict of
Generations which was quite critical of the student behavior at Berkeley. Clark Kerr reflected the faculty
consensus when he said, "We fumbled, we floundered, and the worst thing is I still don't know how we should
have handled it."
Then a real cause appeared, the war in Vietnam. And the students already had a taste of power. They were ready.
They had learned how to organize. They had learned how to recruit. Above all, they had learned how to use
television to their advantage. SDS gathered up twenty-five thousand supporters, including folk singer Joan Baez,
and marched on Washington on 17 April 1965.
Though the march on Washington was successful, no further large scale actions were attempted. But the revolt
simmered on campuses across the country. The students were not directly affected by the Vietnam War since
student deferments were allowed. Those who didn't want to be drafted could avoid it merely by staying in school
after graduation. Many did just that. It didn't take the government long to realize that students were using
graduate school for escaping their military obligations. Then, in the summer of 1967, the government applied the
match to the student powder keg. It announced that deferments for education would no longer be allowed for
graduate students and there were time limits placed on undergraduates. Impending military service loomed ahead
for all the male students. They faced two years of strictly enforced authoritarian discipline. This was a blow to
young men who were rebellious to any sign of any rule. Young people who had before protested America's
imperialism from a coolly intellectual viewpoint now experienced raw fear in their entrails. They had been
fighting for greater freedoms, even the removal of all restrictions, and they suddenly found themselves tightly
bound in chains with no escape. The campuses across the United States changed overnight. As one student later
wrote, "A burning frenzy enveloped the campus."
That far away war across the Pacific was no longer a distant but regrettable thing. It was now a personal and
intimate part of each male student, along with their wives, families, and girl friends. Until this time, President
Johnson had been a favorite of the students because of his stand on civil rights. That attitude changed overnight.
He now became a hated figure. Shouts of "Sig Heil" greeted his appearance on television. "Hey! Hey! LBJ! How
many kids have you killed today?" greeted him when he appeared in person. There was even, "Lee Harvey
Oswald - Where are you? We need you!" Johnson received hundreds of assassination threats every month. Then
he, perhaps wisely, decided not to run for re-election.
During the first few months of the Nixon administration, the public's attitude toward the student's rebellion
hardened. Nixon promised "law and order." Thirty-nine state legislatures considered four hundred laws calling
for punishment of students who defied law and order. Four-thousand students were arrested in the first half of
1969 on various charges from disorderly conduct to arson.
The SDS met in Chicago's Coliseum on 18 June 1969, the last of nine consecutive annual conventions. A sixpage article was distributed by New Left Notes entitled You Don't Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the
Wind Blows. Thus were born the weathermen. But there was much dissension, so much that the meeting became
stormy on many fronts.
Until this time, there had been a loose alliance between the students and the black activists. From the white
student's standpoint it had been an honest effort to help the blacks reach their goals. This feeling was not
reciprocated. The blacks had accepted the help reluctantly. They openly mistrusted those "wimpy white dudes."
The Black Panthers, a militant black activist group, was the predominant black organization represented at the
Chicago meeting. The Black Panthers immediately rejected the Maoist members of SDS, calling them traitors.
The resulting power struggle resulted in the splitting of the Marxist SDS organization into two parts, half under
the domination of the Maoists, the other half under the Trotskyites (led by Bernardine Dohrn).
A most significant event occurred during the convention. Not only did the Black Panthers succeed in splitting
SDS, they left the organization themselves. Before they left, however, one of them also provided the catalyst to
split the white women away from the white men in the nationwide activist effort. Until this time the white men
and white women had been working together to gain a better world, one which would be fair to all, be they black,
brown, yellow, white, male, or female. This Black Panther spokesman proceeded to explain from the podium the
role of the woman in the revolution. It was to be "flat on her back with her legs spread." He continued this line of
reasoning in spite of resounding objections from the floor. When finally shouted down, other Black Panthers
insisted that he have his say. And he continued. "The purpose of the women," he said, "is to supply the pussy."
The women in the movement were outraged. Many admitted there was a lot of truth in what the Black Panther
said. The anger at first was mainly directed at the Black Panthers, but then it was turned against the movement
men.
Not that this was a new issue. As early as 1965 at the SDS annual meeting of that year, Jane Adams pushed
through a resolution which said in part:
"Women, because of their colonial relationship to men, have to fight for their own independence. People who
identify with the movement and feel that their own lives are part of the base to bring about radical social change
must recognize the necessity for the liberation of women."
Three female activist members of the New Left were disappointed with the treatment they had received from the
male members of the movement. One of them wrote:

"We were still the movement secretaries and the shit-workers; we served the food, prepared the mailings and
made the best posters; we were the earth mothers and the sex-objects for the movement men. We were the free
movement "chicks" - free to screw any man who demanded it, or if we chose not to - free to be called hung-up,
middle class and uptight. We were free to keep quiet at the meetings - or, if we chose not to, we were free to
speak in men's terms. If a woman dared conceive an idea that was not in the current limited ideological system,
she was ignored and ridiculed. We were free, finally, to marry and raise liberated babies and clean liberated
diapers, and prepare liberated dinners for our ass-hunting husbands or "guys we were living with." What men just
can't dig is that we, females, are going to define our movement, that male advice is paternalistic - no less so than
when given by a white to a black."
As another put it:
"Here they come. Those strutting roosters, those pathetic male chauvinists, egocentric, pompous and ridiculous
bastards."
The Weathermen, as the portion of SDS under Dohrn became known, turned to violence (a common result in
Marxist movements). As a matter of interest, even though this movement was criminal, ending in trials and jail
for many, and Dohrn is prohibited from practicing law anywhere in the US, she is now a valued employee of the
American Bar Association as an expert in the field of child law. Lawyers are usually graduates of liberal arts
schools where they are liberally indoctrinated in socialism. Supporting Dohrn is evidence enough of the socialist
influence in our modern justice system.
The students supported Nixon with his campaign promise to bring the boys home. But on the last day of April
1970, he ordered the incursion into Cambodia. The students were furious and began demonstrating in earnest.
Four students were killed by the National Guard at Kent State. Two more, blacks, were killed at Jackson State
College. These actions inspired more severe reaction from the students. Scarcely a campus escaped damage.
ROTC buildings on many campuses were burned to the ground. Sixteen states found it necessary to call out the
National Guard.
Troops were withdrawn from Cambodia and a small withdrawal of American forces from the theater was made.
This seemed to mollify the students somewhat. Demonstrations continued but they were smaller and less
destructive. A last giant demonstration was held in the nation's capital on 24 April 1971. There was no violence.
This appeared to be the end of the student revolution.
But it was not.
It was only the beginning.
So what does this mean? It was far-reaching and in the end disastrous to all Western culture.
The revolutionaries in the universities during the 60's tried for a Marxist revolution and failed. Since by tradition,
the power behind any Marxist revolution is the worker, they went for that source of support but were rejected.
They then tried for black support, but again they were rejected. They then used the Vietnam War as a rallying
point. That too disappeared when that war ended. Lacking support, the movement apparently faded away. That
was only the apparent result. They actually went back to school, got their degrees, taught their peers and students
about socialism, and prepared for another day.
Those revolutionary students (a hundred thousand of them or more) are now the teachers, the journalists, the
writers, the television producers, and the bureaucrats of the United States. In the meantime a legion of students
have been exposed to this virulent disease. Many of them have contracted the same fever. There is no longer
need for revolution. Socialism was now taught as a matter of fact. Since almost all leaders are educated, they also
became well educated in socialism. Where before, Marx was read and quoted on the sly, he is now incorporated
in the text books.
Balint Vazsonyi in an essay titled "The Battle for America's Soul," published in the Winter issue of Common
Sense said in part:
"Education used to be based on the best available information, the consensus of generations, and rewards
designed to extract the best effort from all participants. Currently, information is being replaced by propaganda,
consensus by the whim and din of activist groups, best effort by primitive egalitarianism." Americans are no
longer judged by their abilities, but by membership in favored classes. Our traditional standards of morality "are
being displaced by doctrines which do not even recognize the existence of values; the spirit of voluntarianism is
being choked by coercion. Sadly, all these symptoms of creeping socialism are endorsed by American liberals."
See Illiberal education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus, Dinesh D'Souza, 1991, The Free Press
See Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education, Roger Kimball, 1991, Harper
Perennial.
Marxism Philosophy and Economics, Thomas Sowell, 1985, Morrow.
Socialism and Medicine

Both free enterprise and socialism have their shortcomings, but a joining of the two is a marriage made in hell.
This is what we have in the US today. The offspring of this union is an abomination. Many other examples may
be shown, but the medical care industry is a good case in point where the joining of socialism and free enterprise
has created an impending disaster.
It started as a typical socialist question, "How would you like to be old, destitute and in need of medical
care?" (The bait is cast.)
Then you must answer, "I wouldn't like that a bit." (You take the hook, bait, sinker and line.)
"Then why don't we do something about all these suffering and dying old people? You do want to help them
don't you?" the socialist pounces, "All we need to do is have the government pay for their medical care."
In the first place: To suffer and die is part and parcel of growing old. No amount of money or care will change
that. All it can possibly do is prolong that part of life that is not much fun. From a species welfare standpoint,
would not the money be better spent somewhere else?
Secondly: From birth, people know they will be old someday. They know full well that they should be arranging
for their own care, and that they should take good care of their health.
Thirdly: Are there cultural and economic side effects that should be taken into consideration? As you will see,
the effects are severe and many.
And fourth: Is socialization the most efficient way of doing it? The answer is, of course not. Even if paid to
design a more inept system to do anything, no one could possibly design one.
A victim has been created though, one that must be serviced. If anyone should question the side effects, he
would immediately be branded as mean-spirited, vicious, cruel, a hater of old people, one who is insensitive to
someone else's pain, etc. Besides, the government will pay for it and everyone knows that they have a lot of
money. The interesting part about the socialist/liberal way of thinking, is that there is no lack of victims for
whom huge programs must be begun. In fact the best way to take the spotlight off the last fiasco is to be always
generating a new one to shift the public's attention. Everyone alive has a problem. In some way everyone is a
victim of some sort of hardship and unfairness. Fighting to survive has been man's lot since the beginning.
In the free enterprise economic system, man struggles to produce. If a new product is born, it can create a new
market. It has been estimated that each dollar spent on a product will generate about nine dollars in the GNP. It
pays for salaries and goods that in turn generates other sales and labor. These dollars create wealth that in turn
brings a higher living standard for everyone who produces. In socialism, man struggles to allocate resources
file:///C|/onelifebook/social/socmed.html (1 of 5)1/25/2007 4:51:21 PM
fairly. Each dollar spent in socialized programs subtracts from the GNP. Its spiral is cut short by the costs of
administration, and often helps keeping someone from producing. These dollars are not the result of creating
wealth but of slicing it from somewhere else.
Having said all these true things, the fact remains: Old people at the point of greatest medical need are also at the
lowest earning point of their lives. The public has an obligation to alleviate that suffering. Still, to lavish
unbridled care on all, whether needy or not, is a stupid decision. What should be done may be described in two
sentences: Those that are needy should receive help. The help given must be needed. This service may be
public supported but should be administered locally so that both requirements may be more easily verified.
So Medicare was born. In its original form it was a government socialization of the medical needs of the elderly,
paid for by the government (don't give me this stuff that they pay part of it out of their social security, both social
security and Medicare are paid by the government and come from taxes). And no hardship qualification is
required. And the establishment of need for the service is not required. And no limit is placed on cost.
Medicine had been free enterprise until that point. Even medical insurance (a voluntary form of medical
socialization) was scarce and expensive. The relationship between the doctor and the patient was both personal
and economic. Since the patient was spending his own money, he was frugal. Since the doctor received his
income directly from the patient, he was personable in his service and caring in his approach. He was also careful
not to overcharge.
The big mistake made was that economic and cultural changes that would result from Medicare were not
considered.
A culture is a set of behaviors. All human behaviors are the result of instincts modified by intellect. Changing
one element of a culture affects all others. In a sense, any change to a culture creates an entirely new one. A list
of interactive elements within a culture would be quite long (the result is called a simulation). One has never
been made (it would now be possible, however, with modern computer equipment). When a change is proposed,
especially one so large as the move toward the socialization of medicine, at least gross analyses of the interactive
effects should have been made.
A free enterprise system is based on supply and demand. A balance is reached between the sector of our society
that creates goods and services, and the consumer of those goods and services. The mind-set of the consumer is
that he will buy only if the quality/price ratio is high. The mind-set of the producer is that of discovering the
proper quality/price ratio so that he may sell his product. This system has feedback that drives the quality/price
ratio to its optimum point.
In a socialist system, the consumer is allowed those products and services decreed by the proper decision body.
The cost of producing the goods and services is not relevant (one of the reasons they all go broke). The
individual has nothing to say (except by vote, if then) about the quality or amount of the goods and services he
receives. The producer of the goods and services is not paid by the consumer, so he has no incentive to produce a
quality product. Since there is no feedback on his cost, the cost inevitably drifts out of control. The result is a
system that produces poor quality, poor service, and at a high cost.
If a socialist system is placed over a sizable portion of a free-market economy, the result is economic and
cultural chaos.
Another Big Mistake: It is assumed that the amount now being spent may be used as a basis for determining the
project cost. In fact, there are so many other factors adding to the cost that the original cost is probably incidental.
Suddenly, medical service becomes almost free for the elderly. The government provides the money. Private
enterprise provides the product. Old people have many aches and pains. They are also lonely and feel discarded
by life. A trip to the doctor becomes a new part, a new interest, of life. Conversations with friends begin with a
recitation on the number of medicines taken and the amount of surgery during the past year. The amount of
medical service demanded jumps by a huge factor.
People, who would otherwise pay their own way, join the gravy train. Without a requirement of being
economically needy, anyone who qualifies for free medical care is silly to pass up the opportunity not only to get
free medical care but to get many services he would not require if he had to pay for it out of his own pocket.
Even more strain is placed on the medical service and the taxpayer's pocketbook.
The local con man sees a lucrative opportunity. Anytime the government is paying the bill, fraud enters the
picture. It has been estimated that between 7% and 10% of the bill for Medicare is payment for fraud.
Doctors need a little extra to pay for that new Mercedes. The government refuses to look at this problem. The
AMA is a powerful political force. Reporting obvious doctor fraud to the government is a waste of time. Doctors
charge for services not rendered. They cooperate by calling each other in on cases where they are not needed.
Often they do not even show. They own laboratories where they send work that may not even be required. They
own hospitals where a $10.00 aspirin or Band-Aid is common. There are obvious conflicts of interest, to which
the government is blind. Doctors under free enterprise made house calls, and were noted for their bedside
manner. When the government started paying Medicare, all doctors suddenly had no need for such stuff. Since
the desired price schedule for all medical services is invariably (anyone getting money from the government
becomes insatiable) half of that allowed, the problem is solved by spending half as much time with a patient, and
stacking patients in the waiting room for hours to ensure a steady flow through his production line. This sharp
dealing, reminiscent of lawyers or used car salesmen, adds enormously to the cost.
Added together, all of these factors cause an enormous upsurge in annual cost of care. From a national average of
a few hundred dollars per year per senior citizen, it has become several thousand per year. In a free enterprise
system, this is seen as a huge jump in demand. Prices rise accordingly, adding even further to the cost. Drugs are
suddenly in demand. In a supply and demand society this means surging costs.
The most expensive way to do anything is to hand it to a bureaucracy. Their cost is added. Bureaucrats are
experts at economic razzle-dazzle. Since it is not their money, their accounting system is bizarre, to put it kindly.
As a result, no one knows what the real costs of the Medicare bureaucracy are. Estimates from an added 25% to
35% of total cost have been made by experts in the field. But, there are also hidden governmental costs. For
example: Medicare requires considerable congressional and executive branch maintenance effort. The limousines
and chauffeurs servicing these people when working on Medicare alone cost a nice piece of change, let alone the
costs for these people, their staffs, and all of the little perks picked up along the way. In addition, one should
allocate a percentage of the costs of IRS for collecting the taxes, the justice department for bringing Medicare
offenders (what few they bother with) to justice, etc.
So far, this discussion has been on factors that directly relate to Medicare costs. These direct costs include the
doctors, staff, hospitals, drugs, fraud and waste.

A huge bureaucratic force is required to administer Medicare. Since bureaucrats have no accountability, their
work is complex, slovenly and slow. In addition, their pay is high, their perks are expensive, their retirement is
lavish, they enjoy every conceivable holiday, they have two hour three martini lunches, 30 days sick leave and 30
days vacation off each year, plus any other time they can wrangle. They also tend to come to work late and leave
early, Their main job is to create work, so they can justify their own existence. They do this by generating paper
work and otherwise harassing the working people. They not only add their own cost to the Medicare, but their
interference creates costs in the medical industry. All of this adds to the overall cost. On top of that, though, their
jobs are a significant part of the labor costs in the overall GNP, which raises the labor rate for the entire nation.
Industry must compete with their pay, perks and generally easy life style. The taxpayer then picks up the tab on
this hidden tax every time he buys anything.
There are also insidious hidden costs. For example: Outside purchase versus in-house production is always a big
part of the planning in the manufacturing industry. As long as the make-or-buy decision is in an open market, it
is quite valid to use market competition to hold overall manufacturing costs down. The automotive and aircraft
manufacturing companies will often buy half or more of their total manufacturing costs. When the government is
footing the tab, however, this outside purchase of goods and services is more often taken for convenience rather
than price control, and the resulting costs are much higher. Customary three-bid-quotations are dispensed with.
The supplier is able to gouge due to lack of competition. The government picks up the tab. The taxpayer pays
through the nose. Look at the hospital of today. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of service groups sharing in
the pie.
So the taxpayer pays for the medical care, the overhead government costs, the increased labor costs across the
nation, the fraud and insipid price gouging, and the increased cost for his own medical care, since it is now in
competition with the government project. Since medical costs have now increased beyond his means to save for a
medical emergency, he must now pay an additional fee for medical insurance to protect himself and his family.
That raises his medical costs at least another 25%.
Suddenly medicine became big business. Wall Street got into the picture. The cold war government/big business
alliances moved across the street and set up new shops in the health care field. HMOs became predominant
health care providers. Huge alliances were made.
Meanwhile the patient is getting a lot of money spent on him, but he is now no more than raw material in a new
factory. They process him through, and collect big bucks.
Then we added Medicaid.
And now we are talking about universal health coverage.
Before Medicare, we had many old folks who had health care problems. After Medicare, everybody has a health
care problem.
A large part of the medical industry is now run by bureaucrats. All bureaucracies have two characteristics: 1.
Cost of service will climb, 2. Quality of service will fall. When faced with a shortfall, schools always threaten to
let teachers go, police departments threaten to let police officers go, etc. Both of those institutions have been
around awhile. Their bureaucracies are well established. Most schools could not cut 10% off their budgets
without letting all of the teachers go. The expense of attending a college or university is spiraling, yet rare is the
class taught by a professor. That same thing is happening in the medical industry. The result of the socialization
of a large part of national health care has produced a new wealthy class. However, patients are seeing less and
less of the doctor and more of the head nurse or practitioner. As with other bureaucratized functions, cost will
continue to spiral while service will continue to decline.
Saving enough during one's life work to hedge against old age medical problems was difficult before Medicare.
Instead of Medicare we should have attacked that as the main problem and then stood willing to fill in if needed.
Because of Medicare, saving enough is now impossible. Instead of helping a victim, we have created many,
while losing entirely the notion that saving is a virtue.
Free enterprise is a self-healing process. The marketplace provides the correction. Socialism has no
correction process. It starts well, but it is all down hill from there.
The drive toward socalized medicine, of which medicare and medicaid are the first two steps, appears to be more
of a political process than a humanitarian one. The spectre of old people without adequate medical care is the
facade, hiding a spear thrust into a capable society, rendering it helpless in the face of inevitable economic
failure. We had the foremost medical system on the face of the earth, far superior to those in socialist countries.
We now have a ravenous, insatiable monster devouring our resources, while degenerating our ethics and virtues.
What better way to drive a nation to its knees, making it more vulnerable for a socialist coup?
Now add social security, welfare, and a socialized education system teaching only socialism, and the future looks
grim.
All socialist projects are money transfers from one group to another. Social security transfers money from the
young to the government and the old, as does medicare. Welfare and medicaid transfers money from the healthy
and energetic to the inept, sick, lazy and again the government. With every program the government gets fatter
and gains more perks.
MRI can show brain activity
New magnetic imaging technique can show brain activity

MURRAY HILL, N.J. -- A new technique for imaging the human brain that yields images of brain
function, rather than anatomy, has been demonstrated by a team of scientists from AT&T Bell
Laboratories and from the University of Minnesota Medical School.
The technique, a variation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), is detailed in a paper published in the
July 1 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Instead of MRI's standard images
of different types of brain tissue, the AT&T/Minnesota images show the precise locations of increased
neuronal activity within a living brain.
"Our method adds an entirely new dimension to MRI images of the brain, allowing us not just to see the
brain, but to see it working," says Bell Laboratories biophysicist Seiji Ogawa, who pioneered the
development of the new method. "By imaging the brain in this way, we can map the specific sites of
certain types of mental activity."
"We've known for many years that our brains contain discrete anatomical areas that are specialized for
performing different types of thinking," said David Tank, head of the Biological Computation Research
Department at Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, N.J.
"Our new method can be used to map these areas in a normal, awake person with an accuracy that was
impossible to achieve with previous brain imaging methods.
"We have already demonstrated that we can pinpoint--down to the scale of millimeters--the precise parts
of the brain that are activated by a simple visual stimulus and during coordinated hand movements,"
says Tank.
"We believe the method can also be used to image brain areas involved in higher cognitive function,
such as multiplying two numbers together or creating mental images."
Tank's department is attempting to learn from biological neural networks how to design better
computers.
"Medical researchers and clinicians are excited about using this method to map human brain activity,"
according to Kamil Ugurbil, director of the Center for Magnetic Resonance Research at the University
of Minnesota.
"It will be possible to provide more accurate images of the brain for neurosurgeons to use in planning
surgery, and possibly to localize those brain areas that are active during epileptic seizures.
file:///C|/onelifebook/evolve/att.html (1 of 4)1/25/2007 4:51:22 PM
"What is really exciting about the new technique is that it is completely non-invasive: it requires no
surgery and poses no health risk to the subject," Ugurbil added.
Called Blood Oxygen Level Dependent (BOLD) imaging, the new method detects increases in blood
flow to active areas of the brain. Specifically, BOLD imaging detects changes in the amount of oxygen
that is bound to the hemoglobin molecules in each area of the brain.
"It is now well recognized that MRI provides exquisite images of brain anatomy and pathology," said
Ugurbil. "This new development of functional mapping brings a totally new and novel dimension to the
use of MRI. No other method has proven to be so versatile, comprehensive and powerful in biomedical
research and clinical medicine.
In addition to Ogawa, Tank, and Ugurbil, the other authors of the PNAS paper are Ravi Menon, Jutta
Ellermann, Seong-Gi Kim, and Hellmut Merkle, all research scientists at the Center for Magnetic
Resonance Research.
Functional human brain imaging using the BOLD contrast method has also recently been demonstrated
at lower magnetic field strengths by researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Medical
College of Wisconsin.
ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION

"As the body increases blood flow to the active regions of the brain, that increased blood flow is
detected by looking for pockets of high-oxygen blood," explains Seiji Ogawa. "That's where Magnetic
Resonance Imaging comes in. Hemoglobin without oxygen--known as deoxyhemoglobin--is
paramagnetic, meaning that when it is placed in a magnetic field, it slightly increases the strength of the
field in its vicinity.
On the other hand, hemoglobin containing oxygen is not paramagnetic, so when a lot of
deoxyhemoglobin is present in a region, the magnetic field surrounding the blood vessel is distorted
slightly. This distortion shows up in an MRI image, if the imaging parameters have been properly
chosen and the MRI equipment is sufficiently sensitive."
Ogawa first observed this phenomenon in animals in 1989. Experiments done over the next two years
with several colleagues helped him understand the physical and neurological principles at work, and
convinced him that the technique would also work on humans.
To test the idea, the Bell Labs researchers began collaborating last year with Ugurbil and his colleagues
at the University of Minnesota's Center for Magnetic Resonance Research.
Minnesota had recently acquired a human-size MRI system with a much higher magnetic field strength
(4 Tesla) than those commonly used today in hospitals and other radiology facilities.
This higher field strength makes possible images of sufficiently high resolution to localize brain activity
to the scale of fractions of an inch, and also maximizes the contrast between hemoglobin and
deoxyhemoglobin. The University of Minnesota instrument is one of only three 4 Tesla machines in the
U.S.
In their experiments, the research team took an MRI image of a volunteer's brain in a relatively quiet
state with no sensory stimulation, and then another with sensory stimulation--a flashing light, for
example.
Image-processing software was then used to "subtract" the control image from the active-brain image,
producing an image showing only the areas of increased brain activity resulting from the stimulation.
Although several other methods can be used to perform functional brain imaging, the BOLD images are
unique in their combination of high-resolution, precise timing, repeatability, and safety. Some methods,
such as magnetoencephalography and electroencephalography, measure the weak magnetic and electric
fields produced by active brain areas.
Although these methods provide excellent time resolution, they are not able to precisely localize the
source of the measured brain signals.
A more precise technique--Positron Emission Tomography (PET)--can image brain activity on the scale
of centimeters, but requires much more time to acquire a functional image and, most importantly, is
invasive.
It involves the injection of radioactively-labeled molecules into the subject's bloodstream, which
eventually find their way to the brain. Once there, the radioactivity can be picked up by scanning
devices, and provides a representation of blood flow to various regions in the brain.
Because of the necessary limitations on radiation exposure, only a small number of scans can be safely
taken on an individual subject. Brain mapping in the past has therefore been done by averaging the
information from several individuals, which limited the precision of the maps.
But with BOLD imaging, several consecutive images can safely be taken of a single subject, permitting
studies of the onset and ending of a neural activity. In addition, BOLD images have a higher spatial
resolution than PET images.
Use Back command on browser to return

Mutations and the Human.
From p32, April 1999 issue of Scientific American, by Tim Beardsley. Regular print is from the original
article. Italics are comments related to "The Degeneration of Man".
MUTATIONS GALORE
Humans have high mutation rates. But why worry?
All living things slowly accumulate mutations, changes in the string of chemical units in the famous
DNA double helix that may in turn alter the form and function of a protein. A mutation that does affect a
protein, if passed on to an offspring, might improve the progeny's chances in life or, more likely, harm
them. Deleterious mutations, which can cause genetic diseases, are unfortunately more likely than
beneficial ones, for the same reason that randomly retuning a string on the piano is likely to make the
instrument sound worse, not better.
COMMENT:
Under a benign environment, one that does not cull out subtle deleterious mutations by death, such
mutations can accumulate in the species gene pool until the overall function of the organism reaches a
level that is not survivable. For example, our modern civilization can support widespread individual
degradation, to a point. A civilization can care for a number of defectives, but there is a limit, that when
reached, results in the civilization itself collapsing. Suddenly the entire population, being required to
revert to more primitive living conditions with now damaged capabilities, is unable to survive and the
species becomes extinct.
Despite the hazard of harmful mutations, researchers until recently had only the vaguest notion of how
often they occur in humans. Many mutations are thought to produce no obvious effect, yet they might
still represent a subtle disadvantage to an organism carrying them. Adam Eyre-Walker of the University
of Sussex and Peter D. Keightley of the University of Edinburgh recently examined the frequency of
mutations in humans by studying how many have occurred in a sample of 46 genes during the six
million years since the humans and chimpanzees last shared an ancestor. The results, published in
'Nature', were surprising: a minimum of 1.6 harmful mutations occurs per person per generation, and the
number is more likely close to three. That number is high enough to pose a challenge to theorists.
file:///C|/onelifebook/evolve/mutate.html (1 of 4)1/25/2007 4:51:22 PM
Eyre-Walker and Keightley's approach was subtle. They first assessed how many human mutations
occurred in the sample of genes that could not have produced any alteration in a protein and so must
have been invisible to natural selection. (A fair proportion of mutations, even those occurring in active
genes, do not cause any change in the protein that they encode.) They judged which differences in gene
sequences between human and chimpanzees were caused by mutations in humans by comparing
discrepant sequences with the equivalent gene in a third primate group. If the third group's sequence
matched up with that of the chimpanzees, the change was surmised to have occurred in the human line.
From this number of "invisible" human mutations, Eyre-Walker and Keightley could calculate the
theoretical number of mutations that should have resulted in altered proteins. The answer was 231. But
only 143 such protein-changing human mutations were actually seen in the sample. The missing 88, they
concluded, did occur at some point but were harmful enough to be eliminated by natural selection. That
number leads to the estimate of perhaps three harmful mutations per person per generation.
COMMENT:
There are about 80,000 genes in the human genome. To put these numbers in perspective: out of
400,000 protein altering mutations during that period, 150,000 were eliminated through death and
suffering and 250,000 still reside in the human gene pool.
99.9% of the six million year period over which this study was made, was under a severe environment,
not at all the civilized environment we now enjoy. The rate of accumulation of harmful mutations was
extremely low during that time since the severe environment effectively eliminated them through death
and suffering. When man invented agriculture and animal husbandry then later invented medicine and
compassionate cultures (prisons instead of death for criminals, welfare and assistance programs,
minimum wages, etc.), many serious genetic afflictions were subsidized and left in the gene pool to
multiply and spread. All of those 250,000 deleterious mutations probably accumulated during the last
2,000 years. The rate of mutation has not changed, but the rate of assimilation into the gene pool is
many orders of magnitude larger now than in most of the early times.
The proportion of mutations that is clearly harmful seems lower than most geneticists would have
guessed. But the overall rate of human mutations is very high, and as a result of the rate of bad
mutations is disturbingly high, too.
According to standard population genetics theory, the figure of three harmful mutations per person per
generation implies that three people would have to die prematurely in each generation (or fail to
reproduce) for each person who reproduced in order to eliminated the now absent deleterious mutations.
Humans do not reproduce fast enough to support such a huge death toll. As James F. Crow of the
University of Wisconsin asked rhetorically, in a commentary in 'Nature' on Eyre-Walker and Keightley's
analysis: "Why aren't we extinct?"
COMMENT:
Note that the rate discovered by these scientists is much larger than estimated in "The Degeneration of
Man."
The reason we are not extinct is that ancient families were much larger. The childbearing period of a
female is about 25 years and one child may be born each year. Families of 12 to 24 children were not
unusual, even in early times in the US. Many tribes of primitives around the world still do. Child
mortality was high, nature was merciless.
Crow's answer is that sex, which shuffles genes around, allows detrimental mutations to be eliminated in
bunches. The new findings thus support the idea that sex evolved because individuals who (thanks to
sex) inherit several bad mutations rid the gene pool of all of them at once, by failing to survive or
reproduce.
COMMENT:
Sheer nonsense. That sexual shuffling also spreads deleterious mutations far and wide, more than
making up for any elimination through bunching. Sex was invented (a cruel invention by a cruel
process) because it provided more opportunity for mutations and for more variations in combinations of
traits. Although it resulted in far more deaths from genetic problems than in the prior cloning
organisms, it also resulted in faster development if the species survived. Some did. The human is one of
those. Now that we have modified our environment and it is no longer as effective in the removal of
deleterious mutations, we are now degenerating mind, body and culture.
Yet natural selection has weakened in human populations with the advent of modern medicine, Crow
notes. So he theorizes that harmful mutations may now be starting to accumulate at an even higher rate,
with possibly worrisome consequences for health. Keightley is skeptical: he thinks that many mildly
deleterious mutations have already become widespread in human populations through random events in
evolution and that various adaptations, notably intelligence, have more than compensated. "I doubt that
we'll have to pay a penalty as Crow seems to think," he remarks. "We've managed perfectly well up until
now."
COMMENT
Keightley is correct in viewing human intelligence as a compensating device, but he does not realize that
the degeneration from the accumulation of harmful mutations also affects the human mind, since its
functioning is also subject to these same mutations. Under a benign environment, one that subsidizes
harmful mutations, we are not only deepening in health problems, but our instincts and our intelligence
are degenerating also.
It is extremely difficult for a professional biologist to consider the degeneration of the human. A basic
tenet of the academic elitest ideology is diversity. Diversity is wonderful. All human beings are equal in
value. These are ideological facts. To disagree is to be bigoted, perhaps racially, sexually , ethnically
so, and is tantamount to academic suicide. If the degeneration of the human due to a crippled evolution
process should ever be admitted to be true, then obviously genetic diversity would be undesirable, since
it creates lesser humans. That concept would be intolerable to an ideologue.
RETURN TO THE DEGENERATION OF MAN
The AIDS nursery of the world
RETURN TO SEX

South Asia plagued with epidemic
By Ahmar Mustikhan
1999 WorldNetDaily.com (see http://www.WorldNetDaily.com for all your news.)
KARACHI, Pakistan -- The entire South Asian landscape is under severe jolts -- from the brothels in Bombay, to
the holy Buddhist sites in Dharamsala in north India, to the railway stations and bus stands in Pakistan, where
illicit child sex flourishes, and up to even landlocked insulated, mountainous Bhutan.
The South Asians are being awakened from a centuries old slumber to face a new reality of mass deaths,
unprecedented in history. At the turn of the century South Asia has earned itself the dubious distinction of
becoming the AIDS epicenter of the world. With governments looking the other way, the traditional religious
and eastern values are melting under the pressures of globalization, while the armies of female sex workers,
passive male gays specializing in anal sex and street child prostitutes are sprouting. At least 300 women and girls
go into prostitution each day in South Asia.
In this backdrop where sex is the name of the game, the United Nations has predicted that by the year 2000,
about half of the world's HIV-infected population will live in Asia -- most of them in South Asia. During the
opening years of the coming century, it is expected AIDS will rapidly spread into South Asian countries, while
having little impact on the region's population level.
The UN estimates that 7,500 people around the world are infected with HIV every day, and that heterosexual
transmission has been the cause of more than 75 percent of all HIV infections worldwide. Nearly 50 percent of
the 7,500 daily infections are in women. The agency estimated that by the end of 1995, more than 4 million
people in Asia had HIV or AIDS. The majority of the cases are in India and Thailand, but the virus is spreading
to other Asian countries.
The UN agencies have estimated that over 1.5 million South Asians might have AIDS as of today, with as many
as 15 million infected with HIV. Officials have estimated that as many as 50 million South Asians will be
infected by HIV one year from now, and that there will be more AIDS patients than hospital beds. The
government medicare systems cannot possibly cope with the pandemic. AIDS is on the rise in South Asia, where
50 percent of the prostitutes and 10 percent of the approximately eight million truck drivers in the region are
HIV-infected. Truckers are especially important because experts believe they are the vital link between the
general population and the high-risk groups.
By 2005, the number of HIV cases in South Asia expected to exceed the number of cases in all of Africa. AIDS
began spreading in Asia in the late 1980s. As the incubation period for many people ends, however, the deaths
increase. Experts estimate that about 10 million Asians, the majority of them South Asians, will die of AIDS
before 2015. Infection continues to spread here, mostly through heterosexual intercourse. In the West, AIDS is
transmitted mostly through homosexual contact and intravenous drug use, and is spread by the strain HIV1-B.
But in Africa and Asia, other strains of AIDS are more prevalent, and the disease is transmitted mostly by
heterosexual contact. Sex education in developing countries is lacking compared to AIDS awareness efforts
file:///C|/onelifebook/ethics/aids.html (1 of 2)1/25/2007 4:51:22 PM
aimed at youths in the West. Most Western therapies developed for AIDS are for HIV1-B alone and it is now
known that other strains could cause a heterosexual epidemic. International experts accuse South Asian
governments of drifting toward indifference at this critical juncture.
Ignorance, apathy, corruption, and lack of commitment still prevail. Officials from the United Nations deplore
that governments' responses to prevention programs, if any, are still mixed despite the obvious threat. The
national AIDS programs suffer from a lack of political backing, hampering the agencies' work. Many of the
countries are preoccupied grappling with their political and economical problems, and are not focusing enough
attention on countering the spread of HIV. A large number of cases are going unreported with governments not
knowing how to use the scarce resources on sex education and management of sexually transmitted diseases.
Most South Asian government forbid the distribution of condoms in prisons, needles to injection-drug users, or
free drugs to AIDS patients. While the advanced countries of Asia should be able to avoid the scope of disaster
that was seen in Africa, the South Asian countries would be sitting ducks. Just one short year from now in India
alone, for instance, experts say AIDS may kill more people than in any other country.
Moreover, a significant homosexual community does exist in South Asia. Increasingly gays are slowly coming
out of the closet, though they fear that public health officials have not awakend to the danger presented by AIDS.
Many consider themselves more susceptible to the disease because of what they say are the relatively higher
levels of promiscuity in the gay community. The countries are in need of a nationwide support system for gay
men, with setting up of anonymous AIDS testing centers high on their list of priorities. The rate of attrition
within the homosexual community is yet to be known. The United Nations Development Program has cited
poverty as one of the major issues in the spread of the disease. More than 90 percent of people with HIV are
today living in a developing country.
Worldwide, the hardest hit age group is those aged 15 to 24. According to some reports, the number of AIDS
cases in South Asia is doubling every two years, with India being the worst hit, having numbers doubling every
14 months. This is largely due to the gradual permissiveness of South Asian societies. For the health care
workers the situation is mind-boggling: at times the matter of life and death hinges on a simple matter--condom
supplies. At times, condoms for prostitutes are absent for an entire season leaving nearly leaving tens of
thousands of sex workers and their clients vulnerable to HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.
Africa cradled AIDS yesterday, and today South Asia is the world's largest nursery for the dreaded disease,
mainly because of the lust of sex. According to experts, more people should have to wait to have sex, decreasing
their number of partners, and use condoms, if the region wished to cut down on its AIDS populace.
RETURN TO SEX
file:///C|/onelifebook/ethics/aids.html (2 of 2)1/25/2007 4:51:22 PM
Culture and The Gambel's Quail
file:///C|/onelifebook/psy/quail2.html (1 of 2)1/25/2007 4:51:26 PM
Culture and The Gambel's Quail
Use "BACK" button to return
file:///C|/onelifebook/psy/quail2.html (2 of 2)1/25/2007 4:51:26 PM

One Life

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

One Life

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

OneLife Index

First there was an explosion of unimaginable fury. Then

What is the basic mechanism of life? What is the relationship between

What is proper behavior for the individual human? Can science,

Our science of human behavior determines the course of cultural

Our education should insure the stability of our culture by teaching

Socialism stresses the wants and desires of mankind rather than

We shall require a substantially new

file:///C|/onelifebook/intro1.html (3 of 8)1/25/2007 4:50:42 PM

file:///C|/onelifebook/intro1.html (5 of 8)1/25/2007 4:50:42 PM

file:///C|/onelifebook/intro1.html (6 of 8)1/25/2007 4:50:42 PM

file:///C|/onelifebook/intro1.html (7 of 8)1/25/2007 4:50:42 PM

file:///C|/onelifebook/intro1.html (8 of 8)1/25/2007 4:50:42 PM

file:///C|/onelifebook/onelife2.html (2 of 12)1/25/2007 4:50:43 PM

file:///C|/onelifebook/onelife2.html (3 of 12)1/25/2007 4:50:43 PM

2 DNA strands after replication:

file:///C|/onelifebook/onelife2.html (4 of 12)1/25/2007 4:50:43 PM

file:///C|/onelifebook/onelife2.html (5 of 12)1/25/2007 4:50:43 PM

file:///C|/onelifebook/onelife2.html (6 of 12)1/25/2007 4:50:43 PM

file:///C|/onelifebook/onelife2.html (7 of 12)1/25/2007 4:50:43 PM

file:///C|/onelifebook/onelife2.html (8 of 12)1/25/2007 4:50:43 PM

file:///C|/onelifebook/onelife2.html (10 of 12)1/25/2007 4:50:43 PM

Readers' Questions on OneLife

What about RNA?

file:///C|/onelifebook/onelife2.html (11 of 12)1/25/2007 4:50:43 PM

file:///C|/onelifebook/onelife2.html (12 of 12)1/25/2007 4:50:43 PM

Out of chaos emerged a tiny shred of life. From that came

To build a culture which satisfies the needs of man, man

Once life was created, the mechanism of evolution then

The major development by evolution was the cell, the first

The journey from ramidus to sapien wasn't easy. Evolution

Darwin's theory is perceived by many as a threat to all

The differences in the behavior between man and beast lie in

When man is quantified, and he soon will be, there will be a

There are two central beliefs by all mankind which

file:///C|/onelifebook/evolve/index.html (1 of 2)1/25/2007 4:50:43 PM

file:///C|/onelifebook/evolve/index.html (2 of 2)1/25/2007 4:50:43 PM

A study of the OneLife theory reveals the relationship between the

A study of genetics reveals the method by which the structure of the

Words are symbols that represent intellectual concepts. Communication

Every human is a philosopher. His behavior reflects his concept of his

Moral human behavior optimizes the survival and nourishment of the

Psychology is the science of behavior. It determines, for a given

The human is an instinctively driven social animal with the

The behavioral instincts of man have always been extremely

Psychology has always minimized the effects of genetics and

Modern cultures grew from ancient tribal customs. Early man

Time was when the tribal culture included its management.

An Epitaph for the

It built a strong and powerful nation from a small group of

The Gambel's Quail

Can a birdbrain give man a lesson in disciplined behavior?

file:///C|/onelifebook/psy/index.html (2 of 2)1/25/2007 4:50:44 PM

How can we hope to move from many cultures, all based on

The answer is to provide an unbiased education system which is

There is a profound dread

Our schools entertain the students, build their egos and

What perverse process is it that has changed our education

Modern education dogma has no factual basis. It uses archaic

The Drug Connection

file:///C|/onelifebook/edu/index.html (1 of 2)1/25/2007 4:50:44 PM

file:///C|/onelifebook/edu/index.html (2 of 2)1/25/2007 4:50:44 PM

A culture includes the behavioral requirements of the overlying

Free enterprise emphasizes man's productivity. Such nations are