Gun control and antibiotics

Gun control is a lot like antibiotic misuse.

First some background. There are billions of bacteria in a person's body. Some say that there are more bacterial cells than human cells in the human body. There are many types of bacteria that live on and in the human body, each preferring a different environment or part of the human body.

One of the functions of the bacteria in the human body is to keep away bad bacteria. In effect, the natural bacteria that live on the human body are a part of the human immune system. The good bacteria are very well adapted to living on the human body and generally out-breed bad bacteria just due to their sheer numbers. So bad bacteria find it difficult to get a foothold on the human body. According to Wikipedia:

Within the genitourinary and gastrointestinal tracts, commensal flora serve as biological barriers by competing with pathogenic bacteria for food and space and, in some cases, by changing the conditions in their environment, such as pH or available iron. This reduces the probability that pathogens will reach sufficient numbers to cause illness. However, since most antibiotics non-specifically target bacteria and do not affect fungi, oral antibiotics can lead to an "overgrowth" of fungi and cause conditions such as a vaginal candidiasis (a yeast infection). There is good evidence that re-introduction of probiotic flora, such as pure cultures of the lactobacilli normally found in unpasteurized yogurt, helps restore a healthy balance of microbial populations in intestinal infections in children and encouraging preliminary data in studies on bacterial gastroenteritis, inflammatory bowel diseases, urinary tract infection and post-surgical infections.

When a broad spectrum antibiotic is used by a person, it doesn't discriminate between good bacteria and bad bacteria. It kills ALL bacteria in the person's body, including good bacteria. This leaves the body like a sitting duck for bad bacteria and viruses and fungi to gain a foothold and multiply out of control.

Now you can see why gun control and antibiotic misuse are similar? By preventing normal citizens from carrying firearms, criminals with guns have the edge because the citizens have nothing to defend themselves with.

Demography is Destiny

From Ann Coulter's Demography is Destiny:

Liberals brag about having won the hearts and minds of America, as if, through logic and argument, they’ve persuaded people to accept their bankrupt European socialist ideas. 

Democrats haven’t changed anyone’s mind. They changed the people. 

Most Americans don’t realize that, decades ago, the Democrats instituted a long-term plan to gradually turn the United States into a Third World nation. The country would become poorer and less free, but Democrats would have an unbeatable majority!

Liberals need to import people because they have such a low birth-rate that they're unable to transmit their values, culture, and genes to the next generation.

Of course, conservatives don't have the same problem, but as with anything else, it is easier to just outsource reproduction.

Why house prices are so high

I came across an article while I was researching same-sex marriages:

"Suppose there were a law forbidding anyone to own more than one car. It seems obvious enough that the abolition of that law would increase the demand for cars. Sellers of cars would be better off. Buyers who did not take advantage of the new opportunity--those who bought only one car--would be worse off, since they would have to pay a higher price. Buyers who bought more than one car would be better off than if they bought only one car at the new price (otherwise that is what they would have done) but not necessarily better off than if they bought one car at the old price, an option no longer open to them."

Substitute "houses" for "cars" and you have your answer. I met someone recently who told me that he had actually bought about 15 houses. Who benefits from these arrangements? Bankers, who else!

The greater numbers of single people also drive up prices for pretty much everything, as I've explained in a previous article. They also drive down wages.

Delayed childbearing is good... for the childcare and retirement industries

On Saturday, the Bush Dance Display Group (of which I'm a member) were performing at a retirement village. Some of us started talking during the halfway break about life, ageing, children, etc. Sometime during our chat, I realized that the childcare and retirement industries benefit when women as a whole delay childbearing.

When women marry young and bear children when they're young, their parents (let us call them "the grandparents" to avoid confusion) - who may be in their mid to late forties - can help with childrearing and childminding. Thus such families will be less likely to outsource childcare. In addition, the grandparents themselves are much less likely to need care themselves at that time. When the children are adolescents, they depend less on their parents, so the parents are more likely to be able to care for the grandparents.

On the other hand, when women marry late and bear children in their 30s, the grandparents who will likely be in their 60s are less likely to be able to help with childrearing and childminding. In fact, many grandparents will need substantial care themselves at that age. And most parents will neither have the time nor resources to look after 2 sets of dependents (children and grandparents). Thus, with the lack of grandparental help in childrearing, parents are forced to live on one income or outsource childcare to the childcare industry. In addition, parents may have to move the dependent grandparents into being looked after by the retirement industry (because they're too busy looking after their young children).

Pensions and social security wouldn't even be needed if people looked after their own parents. Instead, these social programs were trying to fix a problem that didn't exist in the first place. When people are offered "free healthcare" they stop looking after themselves ("why should I look after my health when I can get free healthcare?"). When welfare programs are started to help the needy, people stop being charitable ("the government is looking after the poor, so why should we?). When people are offered "free care for the elderly" they stop looking after their elderly ("they have pensions and social security, so they can look after themselves").

All this is very good for the childcare and retirement industries, but detrimental to society as a whole. Some might call these parasitic industries, but perhaps a better name for them is "cannibalistic industries", because they cannibalize the society (of which they're a part), destroying it and eventually themselves in the process. But this process once started cannot be stopped because short term gains are always more attractive than long-term gains.

A man wants to be a woman's first love. A woman wants to be his last.

I came across this quote on Facebook today:

"A man wants to be a woman's first love. A woman wants to be his last."

Maybe the reason why so many relationships fail these days is because women can't give men <what the men want> anymore. The less women bring to the table, the less men will bring to the table as well.

Political correctness

I came across this interesting video on political correctness:

Essentially, Marxism was first an economic theory. Because it was unsuccessful in that domain, it changed its focus, so that modern Marxism now focuses on culture as its target rather than economics. The video makes quite an interesting point about the Marxist "Critical Theory" and how it is used as a weapon to silence and create guilt and thus destroy whatever is its target.

At 6:40, the guy in the video explains how:

1. Feminism uses "critical theory" to attack Western civilization's treatment of women, while turning a blind eye to the treatment of women by other cultures throughout history. Thus the economic basis for the treatment of women is ignored, and instead the culture is blamed and attacked.
2. Minorities use critical theory to attack Western civilization's treatment of blacks and other minority races, while again turning a blind eye to the treatment of these races by other cultures throughout history. Thus again, the economic basis for slavery is ignored and instead the culture is blamed and attacked.

It is quite apparent to any intelligent person that economics is one of the unifying principles of life itself. It is one of the pillars of evolution.

Male infidelity

In this post, I will try to explain why, if you are a married woman, in many cases you should not worry about your husband's infidelity, and in those cases where you should, I will explain what exactly you should worry about. I will deconstruct male infidelity, so that you can understand better what exactly you should worry about and what you needn't worry about.

If you are a married woman, and your husband cheats on you, these are the the things to consider:

1. If you and your husband are of similar age, your sexual power will wane faster than his does. The greater the difference in your ages (him being older than you), the luckier you are: the less likely it will be that he will leave you for another woman. On the other hand, if you are older than he is, he is more likely to leave you for another (younger) woman.
2. The likelihood that he may leave you for the other woman also depends on her attractiveness (age, fertility, looks, etc) and character. Needless to say, if you have nothing to worry about, then you have nothing to worry about.
3. If you do not have any children, he will have less familial ties to keep him in your marriage. A study has shown that marital stability increases with increasing numbers of children, up to 4 (and then plateaus).
4. You should always worry about STDs that your partner may bring and pass on to you. Of course, the degree to which you should worry depends on how promiscuous the other woman is. If she used to be a prostitute, then that's a cause for alarm, but if she is not by nature a promiscuous woman, then there is less cause for worry. Of course you can insist that he get tested, though STDs take time to show up.
5. If you live in a society that doesn't enforce the marriage contract or doesn't impose any penalties for leaving a marriage (such as alimony, child support, etc), then you should worry because it makes it easier for him to leave you.
6. If you married your husband in haste, then be fully prepared to repent at leisure. If you married the wrong kind of man, then don't expect your marriage to last. You will have to put in more of an effort than is usual to keep your marriage together.
7. If the other woman got pregnant as a result of the affair and there is a chance that the state may compel your husband to pay her child support, then you should worry because his resources will be going to support another woman's children instead of your own.
8. If the other woman's husband is the jealous type, and there is a chance that he is a threat to your family, then you should worry.

Is there anything good about male infidelity? This is a difficult question to answer. Women are subconsciously in competition against each other, even while cooperating with each other. There is a fine balance between the two. Women will tend to cooperate when they are fewer in number and men are plentiful. Women will compete when they are more in number and men are scarce. Life can at times be a zero-sum game. If other women's marriages fail, it can be to your advantage, but not always. For example, if another woman's marriage fails (thus reducing her fertility), your children will have less competition when trying to find a mate. On the other hand, your children will have fewer potential mates to choose from.

So instead of feeling righteous indignation if your husband cheats on you, try thinking about the issue rationally. Society might expect you to be indignant, and you can put on a show for their sake, but if you secretly know that there's nothing to worry about, then why sacrifice your happiness for what's "right"?

Life is a game

Many years ago, this one time while I was reading random articles on Wikipedia, I came across some articles about Scientology. Soon I ventured in that direction outside Wikipedia and found this incredible article called "Life is basically a game".

Now this philosophy really made a big impact and it stayed with me because I understood games, having spent large amounts of time in my childhood playing computer games. But I couldn't quite directly use this knowledge. In fact, this reminds me of a book I have. It's almost 100 years old, and it's a treatise on the topic of advertising. While the book has some value, I don't really have much of an interest in the subject of advertising. So I keep it, hoping that some day it will bring me some value. Similarly, LRH's philosophy of the Game of Life stayed with me because I sensed that it had value, but I couldn't use it. Also, in retrospect, I can say for sure that LRH didn't quite get it right. One reason might be that there are claims that LRH was heavily medicated, and this would have affected his writings. LRH likely also had dishonest intentions, and as a result he could have deliberately made up all kinds of nonsense, thereby unknowingly and unintentionally producing this little gem. A bit like the monkeys typing Shakespeare.

In any case, a little gem it was, and this knowledge - this wisdom - stayed in my mind, dormant, a key waiting for the right lock to come by.

With my recent studies in sociology however, I've come to understand that all life is basically a game. And it is possible that LRH's philosophy was the key to me recognizing this fact. Here I will try to outline what I've found.

• All of life is basically a game.
• The vast majority of people don't realize that life is a game.
• The tiny minority of people who do realize that life is a game:
• of these, the vast majority:
• don't know the rules of the game.
• don't know the winning and losing conditions, and thus don't know how to measure their success or failure
• can only guess at the rules, and thus can't know for sure whether they're playing by the correct rules.
• The game never ends.
• A person can never objectively know, and ultimately won't care whether he succeeded or failed:
• but his success or failure will depend on the success or failure of those who came before
• but his success or failure will affect the success or failure of those coming after.
• so most people, even if they are aware of the game, don't care about it.
• Success can easily be undone by those that come after.
• Sometimes, failure (but not utter failure) can also be reversed by those that come after.
• No one will ever know whether the rules they're playing by are the correct rules.
• Those who aren't aware of the game use the strategy of "follow the herd", ie. do what everyone else is doing. This is a strategy that works, but only if the herd is doing the right things, which is most of the time because the herds that remain are the ones that did the right things. (Clue!) Sometimes though, the herd may start doing the wrong things.

Execute the criminals

If you believe in evolution all the way like I do, some conclusions are inevitable. Such as: criminals should be given much harsher sentences, and the focus shouldn't be on trying to rehabilitate them. Rather, they should be executed without undue delay, especially if there is even a tiny suspicion that they will commit further crimes if set free.

There is currently way too much compassion being shown to criminals. They are put in prisons whose luxuriousness rivals that of 3-star hotels. It costs an absolutely staggering amount of resources to house these criminals. Ultimately the cost is borne by the taxpayer, who are struggling to raise their own families. Of course, the problem is that too many people are dependent on the "crime industry". The police, judges, lawyers, prison guards, etc. People in these professions, like parasites, produce nothing of value.

This crime industry is the main reason why the government is so keen on gun-control. Someone once told me about a labour union strike that happened at his place of work. Unfortunately I was told this story possibly 20 or more years ago, so I don't remember the details clearly, but please bear with me. There was a bulb that needed to be replaced, so he asked the workers to change it, but the workers on strike refused to change the bulb because they were agitating for higher pay. When he tried to do it himself, they prevented him from doing it and instead threatened him with bodily harm. Just like the union workers, the government also refuses to let the common people take matters into their own hands, because then a lot of government-employed people would be out of work. It's just basic economics. Andy Turnbull explains it brilliantly in The Cassandra Papers:

The most obvious problem with the GNP is that it counts all transactions as positive factors, even if they are obviously negative. The ice storm that hit southern Quebec and eastern Ontario in January of 1998 added billions of dollars to Canada's gross national product.

In 1993 the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York added more than a billion dollars to the GNP of the U.S.A. In 1995 the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City added even more that year and sparked a long-term increase of at least $300 million a year for extra security at US federal buildings.

In Canada Paul Bernardo who raped at least 14 women in the Toronto suburb of Scarborough and who kidnapped, tortured, raped and killed two teen-age girls in St. Catherines added tens of millions of dollars to the GNP. His contribution includes the cost of the police investigation of the rapes and kidnaps, medical and psychiatric treatment for the victims who survived his attention and, after he was caught, his trial and the media frenzy that accompanied it.

If he spends the rest of his life in jail he will continue to contribute to the GNP because the average prisoner costs at least $50,000 a year to maintain and a "special" prisoner like Bernardo, who needs protection from other prisoners, probably costs more. If you believe in numbers, Paul Bernardo was and is a productive member of society.

Read that part again: Criminals are productive members of society. Why? They stimulate the economy. They reduce unemployment (many people, like lawyers, judges, police, etc. base their livelihoods on criminal activity).

But what about the suffering caused to the criminals if we execute them? Assuming anyone in their right mind would care, the criminals will cease to suffer once they're dead anyway.

There is one very real problem: innocent people being falsely found guilty and executed. A best effort should be made to determine if the accused is innocent, and if he is not, the sentence should be carried out without delay. If it turns out later that the one executed was falsely accused, then the accuser can be executed just like the other criminals. Innocent people die all the time: that's just tough. Next time don't be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Other than the economics and morality of it all, why do I think that criminals should be executed post haste? Evolution, what else! Executing them will reduce the likelihood that they will have children. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, the saying goes. Since behaviour has a genetic component and is inherited from parents, it makes sense to eliminate "criminal genes" from the gene pool. Shocking? Well, think about this: why do you think the majority of people living today aren't criminals and instead law-abiding citizens? Because throughout history, those who committed crimes were often executed. They didn't last long enough to leave many children around. If those criminals were treated any differently back then, there would be absolute chaos in society today. The wolves would outnumber the sheep.

What kind of society are we creating for our children?

What is a marriage and what is it for?

In the post-pill era, it has become necessary to clarify exactly what marriage is and what it's for. Why is this necessary? Because there are now so many alternative lifestyles that it has led to conflicts between those who want to be included, and those who want to keep things as they were.

The purpose of marriage has always been for the sole reason of raising healthy children. Many will mistakenly disagree, citing "love", "companionship", etc. The source of this mistaken belief is the ignorance or rejection of the theory of evolution. The means has become the end. In fact, love and companionship are simply the glue that holds a relationship together, hopefully for long enough until the children are independent. In fact, sex itself is now no longer just a means to an end - it is an end in itself.

Those who have children, but nevertheless think that love and companionship are the most important thing are simply doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. Nothing wrong with that. Still, the arrival of children does negatively affect love and companionship in a relationship, so those who value their love and companionship will limit the number of children they have. An endangered species, but not worth shedding tears over.

Those who don't have children will go extinct, so it really doesn't matter what they do or think anyway. They are simply the props or furniture in the stageplay of life. They may get married and be happy together. They may even be a homosexual couple. But in the end, what's the point of being happy if they don't have children? There won't be anyone like them in the future, that's for sure! So it doesn't matter if they want to get "married", because it's not really a marriage in an evolutionary sense.

Some may want to get married and have children but don't want their own, so they adopt. They may be homosexual couples. As before, if the children aren't their own flesh and blood, then they too will go extinct. But they are providing society a service, by parenting some children who would otherwise be a burden on society.

In the past, before the contraceptive pill was invented, sex invariably led to a baby. When this happened, the fate of the child depended on whether it had a father. Because the difference in outcomes (between those children with a father and those without a father) was so big, one thing led to another and marriage was invented. First time, monogamous marriage is the best possible environment in which to raise healthy children. Nothing else comes close.

So next time you are trying to decide whether some relationship is a marriage, remember that the key ingredient is children. There must be children, or atleast an intention to have children. Otherwise it's not a marriage.

The four kinds of love

I am reading a book called "Why Marriage Matters" by Glenn T. Stanton.

The author explains how there is not just one, but four different kinds of love: eros, philia, storge, agape.

Eros is physical attraction and passion, but it can also be more than that. It need not necessarily be a blind attraction to just anyone. Its object can be a specific person.

Philia is friendship that you feel towards your friends. Philia may be the same as "platonic love". When those who we love in this way are absent, we find life less fulfilling. We feel this way about those special people who we would choose to watch a movie with, walk on the beach with, or share our joys and troubles with.

Storge is familial love. It is love between family members, neighbours, and community. It is a kind of "glue" that keeps the tribe together.

Agape is unconditional love, or love under will. This is distinct from the other three, in that it requires effort to maintain. It cannot spontaneously happen - it can only be created and sustained by a conscious act of will. It cannot be sustained by emotion. This love often acts against emotions, which are transitory. It goes against human nature. This is the kind of love that sustains a marriage through thick and thin, in good times and in bad. He quotes Eric Fromm:

"In contemporary Western culture ... love is supposed to be the outcome of a spontaneous, emotional reaction, of suddenly being gripped by an irresistable feeling."

"One neglects to see an important factor in erotic love, that of will. To love somebody is not just a strong feeling - it is a decision, it is a judgement, it is a promise. If love were only a feeling, there would be no basis for the promise to love each other forever." (1)

He continues:

"A true promise means something only in the context of the possibility that we would not naturally produce the thing promised. We promise our love and commitment to our spouse because we recognize that it is not likely to sustain itself upon our original emotions. Our love is sure to be imperfect because we ... are imperfect. In this context, we make a commitment to our beloved to continue the hard work of refining and cultivating our love."

"The recognition of this aspect of marriage is imperative because it goes right to the heart of why so many marriages don't last. Marriage is hard work and takes a commitment to our spouse and to the idea of marriage." (2)

---

References

• 1. Eric Fromm, The Art Of Loving (pp. 55-56)
• 2. Glenn T. Stanton, Why Marriage Matters (pp. 166)

Why employers should only employ married men

Many social science studies have consistently shown that married men (on average) earn more than either single men or single or married women. In fact, this is the earnings order:

1. Married men
2. Single women
3. Single men
4. Married women

Dr. Warren Farrell documents this in his book "Why Men Earn More" which thoroughly debunks the "wage myth" that feminists use to reinforce their victim status.

The most reasonable explanations for the wage gap are motivation and specialization. Married men, especially with children, are found to be more dissatisfied with their wages and put in extra effort to earn more money to support their families. Single men without children simply don't have the same level of motivation to work, simply because their basic needs aren't being met. They are much more motivated towards other, more fundamental, things instead - like trying to have sex regularly.

Consider the other basic needs. When you are hungry, you can't really concentrate on other things like going to the gym, watching a movie, going to a concert, etc. Likewise if you need to go to the toilet, you can't concentrate on other things. Sex is similarly a basic need that needs to be met just like the other needs.

While work does have a direct relationship with hunger, it has only an indirect relationship with the fulfillment of sexual needs. That is, we satisfy our hunger by working. If we don't work, we don't get paid, and we starve. But most people do not work to get sex. Yes you can work and earn money and spend that money on prostitutes, but for the vast majority of men, such relationships are deeply unsatisfying because this lifestyle is not conducive to having children. Or you could work and earn status and power and wealth and these things increase your ability to get sex, but for most men this is too great an investment to make for a delayed and uncertain reward.

It follows that single men are less motivated to do work, because they've got nothing to work for. To them, life seems meaningless and empty. And they're constantly thinking about sex. They won't admit this of course, yet it's true.

Married men on the other hand, are more motivated because they have a wife and children to care for. Life doesn't seem so meaningless and empty anymore. Also, you don't just have the man's work - you have a woman's work behind it as well. Because a married man is simply more available for work, because his wife frees up significant amounts of his time by taking on domestic responsibilities that the man would otherwise have to do if he was single. In a sense, his wife invests her working potential in her husband's career for mutual gain.

Phyllis Schlafly would often speak at women's colleges in the late 70s and early 80s. She explained to them that even if they worked just as hard, and put in as many hours as their male counterparts, there is one advantage a man has that they'll never have; namely, a wife. And, of course, the response would come back, `Why can't a woman have a house-husband?'. Schlafly would respond, `Good luck finding one'. It's not impossible, but it's very improbable. (1)

If you are an employer, you would be wise to employ only married men. Your second choice would be single men, but only those who are planning to get married and have children in the near future. But if single women are more motivated and hardworking than single men, then why prefer men? Because if these single women are of childbearing age, then they are unreliable and potentially expensive employees - we must assume that they will get married or pregnant at some point in the future and you will have a higher employee turnover or other high costs (maternity leave, job sharing, etc) as a result. If you pass on these high costs to your customers, you will lose business to your more efficient competitors who don't employ women. If you pass on these high costs to your employees, you will lose your best employees to your competitors.

If instead perverse incentives are put in place that makes it "profitable to be inefficient" by penalizing companies that refuse to employ women, and by rewarding those who do employ women, then society as a whole will lose business to more efficient societies. Companies may move overseas, workers may choose to emigrate, etc.

1. Reader reviews of book "The Flipside of Feminism"

The case against women's right to vote

I watched a documentary today called "I Want Your Money". An excellent documentary that explains the reasoning behind conservative (USAmerican) fiscal policies. It is an excellent documentary that is worth watching.

Near the start of the film, Mike Huckabee (former Arkansas governor) describes what he read in a book many years ago called "Why Democracies Perish". He says:

"Democracies perish when people begin to understand that they can vote for themselves largesse out of the public treasury. And once they begin to recognize they have the ability to take away other people's possessions and vote it for themselves, they will begin to do that increasingly to the point that they take more out than they put in."

This makes perfect sense. It's exactly what's been happening in the USA (and other socialist countries). Democrats (liberals, progressives) in particular have repeatedly been trying to increase the number of people dependent on the government, and they do this by increasing the scope of welfare. Why would Democrats try to get people dependent on the government? Because that way, they can get votes from them. After all, it is perfectly understandable that those on welfare are more than happy to vote for the party that provides them that welfare, by taking money from those earning it and giving it to those who aren't. This is done with the noble intention of helping the poor, but as someone once said, "If you pay people to be poor, then you will never run out of poor people."

Under the US system of government, each person gets one vote, regardless of whether they are contributing (paying taxes) or non-contributing (not paying taxes) citizens. Even those who pay no taxes get the same opportunity to vote as those paying taxes. A citizen will effectively not be paying tax if the government gives him as much or more money (in the form of welfare, tax deductions, tax credits, etc.) than how much that person paid in tax - he is a net non-contributor.

But what has all of this got to do with women's vote? Consider this parallel:

"Democracies perish when feminists (largely single mothers, "independent" women, career women, etc) begin to understand that they can vote for themselves largesse out of the public treasury. And once they begin to recognize they have the ability to take away men's (and married women's) money and vote it for themselves, they will begin to do that increasingly to the point that they take more out than they put in."

 Ann Coulter understood this very well, and she has said this publicly:

• Youtube: Ann Coulter explains why its better if women didn't vote
• Youtube: ANN COULTER ON HILLARY AND WHY WE SHOULDN'T LET WOMEN VOTE
• Ann Coulter: Take away women's votes because "women are voting so stupidly"

Your immune system is more reliable than you think

My housemate (landlady, actually) thinks I have a stomach of cast iron. Here are some of the things it can do:

1. I went to Nariel Creek Folk Festival during the last Christmas & New Year holidays, and existed solely on tinned food, bread, fruit, etc. It was really hot at that time of year and the interior of the car often got quite hot. As is to be expected, the bread turned moldy with about 4 or 5 different varieties of fungi. The patches of mold were quite large and furry. I deliberately ate the moldy bread, just to see if my body could handle it. The bread tasted sickly-sweet. I gagged several times while trying to force the stuff down and washed it down with unfiltered water from the creek.
2. I made some chicken wraps using roast chicken on a thursday night before the Jane Austen Festival, fearing that there might not be enough food containing protein provided at the festival. As it turned out, the event was more than adequately catered for, unlike in previous years. The wraps sat in the car for a whole week, unrefrigerated, until I ate them the friday night (of the week after the festival) after working out at the gym. The wraps were visibly moldy, and smelled and tasted as much. It was quite an effort trying to get them down.
3. I've eaten roast chicken that had been left on the counter unrefrigerated for more than a week.
4. I've drunk spoiled milk on several occasions.
5. I have a packet of pasta with seasoning sachet that's been "expired" for more than 10 years. I plan to consume it at some point in the future.
6. I've eaten various curries that had gone sour, simply because there was a lot of it and I didn't want to refrigerate them.
7. I defrosted some chicken thighs and cooked half of it. The other half sat in the refrigerator (not the freezer) for about 1/2 weeks. I had forgotten about it, and my housemate complained that the fridge had started to smell. Upon finding the chicken there, I proceeded to cook it in a curry. The chicken had visibly started to decompose, and it had a rather bad smell. The resulting curry also spent some time outside a refrigerator and the last of it went sour. Still, I ate every bit of it.

Now I believe that I'm not fundamentally different from anyone else, so it must be that the average person's immune system is actually capable of feats like the above. For example, many poor people scavenge for food in dumpsters. We are led to believe that our immune systems need all the outside help they can get. Why is this? Perhaps some industries depend on our ignorance:

1. Would refrigerator manufacturers sell as many refrigerators if people knew that food can last quite a long time at room temperature?
2. Would the food industry sell as much food if people knew that food that's past the expiration date is mostly still safe to eat?
3. Would food-safety related government departments still have as much work to do and thus get as much funding if people knew that food-safety is largely a non-issue?
4. Would pharmaceutical companies sell as many drugs if people knew about the "hygiene hypothesis"?

It is important to realize how our immune systems work. It learns about new bugs when we ingest small quantities of them. Then when faced with subsequent invasions of these bugs, the immune system is quick to respond and eliminates them. What I've done is to deliberately introduce new pathogens to my immune system, in a way immunizing myself from them. The immune system is very effective at eliminating biological threats in this way.

Not all threats to the human body are biological in nature. Many are chemical in origin. Some bugs that infect food produce toxic chemicals that causes problems in our bodies that our immune systems can't do anything about. Our main defenders against these chemical threats are our kidneys. They filters out most toxic chemicals from the blood, and excrete them into the urine. However I don't think the kidneys "learn" to break down new chemical toxins, but still they are capable of eliminating most chemical threats.

Ironically, it is those who are the most diligent about food-safety who suffer most of the food poisonings which are often life-threatening. I have made a deliberate choice and acted accordingly to protect myself from food poisonings by deliberately consuming food that's not fit to be eaten.

On a related note, it is truly staggering to know just how much food goes to waste in more developed countries. When I was at Woolworths supermarket choosing the previously mentioned roast chicken (for the wraps), I noticed that a worker had come and was waiting close by with an open bin. I realized then what was about to happen. I chose two roast chickens and as I was walking away, I muttered "Shame... that's a real shame!" while he proceeded to throw the 4 or 5 remaining chickens into the bin.

The cost of the thrown-away chickens is recouped from the sale of the sold chickens. What if they reduced the price of the chickens in the first place? Perhaps then more chickens would be sold, and there would be less waste.

An impending shortage of women

I predict a massive shortage of marriageable women in the near future, if there isn't one already. My prediction may seem a bit strange, especially since in many western liberal democracies, there are more women than men. But the key word here is "marriageable".

Generally speaking, in any monogamous society, it is expected that most men and women who are born in some generation should pair off with each other, even taking into account that men are generally attracted to women a few years younger than themselves, and women are generally attracted to men a few years older than themselves. Over the long term, this system should more-or-less reach an equilibrium. For most people, there will be a man for every woman, and a woman for every man.

Over the last few decades though, women's liberation 'liberated' men from having to commit, 'freed' women from marriage, and often 'unshackled' women from having a family. Regardless of whether it is men or women who are at fault, the end result is that this situation has made a very large number of women unmarriageable: older, less attractive, emotionally damaged, less fertile, less feminine, cynical, jaded, career-driven and less able to devote time to family.

What's less apparent is the fact that while feminism has left huge numbers of women of the last few generations unmarriageable, men were often not affected to the same degree. A 40-year old single woman is unmarriageable. A single man of the same age is eminently not. Often a 40-year old single man is objectively more marriageable than a much younger man, even if we are socialized to believe otherwise.

Unfortunately, under the current feminist regime, women start to become unmarriageable rather early in their lives. Inappropriate sex-education, hormonal contraception, pre-marital sex, casual sex, cohabitation, higher-education, career, etc. take their toll and all of these put women on the slippery slope to unmarriageability. They are only able to get off that wild ride once they reach their thirties and their biological clocks start ticking loudly enough.

What the future holds may be this: men of those generations that suffered under women's liberation (lets call it Generation A), seeing that there are slim pickings of women in their own generation, will look to the following generation's women (Generation B). And these women of Generation B (the intelligent ones anyway) may happily oblige. And where will Generation B's men look for women? Their own women are pairing off with the men from Generation A. And a lot of the other women in Generation B are fast becoming unmarriageable thanks to feminism. Large numbers of men will face a life of singledom, and society will face significant costs associated with having large numbers of single males who have no chance of having a family.

I suppose there is also an impending shortage of men, because even unmarriageable women do want to eventually marry. But the men may not happily oblige. This is not as serious a problem as the shortage of marriageable women, however, because single women are capable of leading more functional lives than single men are.

What should a woman do with her intelligence?

I received a book in the mail a while back called "Monkeys On Our Backs". The author at one point questioned the common idea that women should use their intelligence and potential to benefit society.

All men and women are born with intelligence. But they are so different from each other that intelligence benefits them differently.

What the science shows is that a man needs to use his intelligence in order to reproduce (have children). A man who does not have intelligence to gain status, wealth, and power will have trouble finding a wife. In evolutionary terms, a man who is intelligent and who uses it will enjoy higher fertility. A man who is not intelligence will have more trouble finding a wife and having children.

On the other hand, it is exactly the opposite for women. Women who "use" their intelligence to its "full potential" must necessarily have lower fertility. This is not idle opinion - it is a scientific fact, backed by empirical observations. A woman has a limited time, part of which she can allocate to career, and the other part to family. She cannot give 100% to each. A woman who divides her time between family and career will have less fertility than a woman who gives 100% to family. It is only possible for a career woman to match the fertility of a housewife if:

1. there are perverse incentives that artificially boost the fertility of career women (tax breaks, socialized day care, socialized fertility treatments)
2. there are perverse disincentives that artificially lower the fertility of housewives (tax codes that penalize families, higher taxes to support career women's choices, etc)

Note that I'm not saying that women should not be intelligent. Rather, I'm saying that women are better off not "using it to its full potential" in the modern sense ie. pursue a career. From an evolutionary standpoint, women can effectively use their intelligence to further their reproductive success in only one way: by passing it on (via genes) to their children.

1. Their sons will benefit, because they will be able to attract a quality wife and have children. The more intelligent he is, the higher status, wealth, and power he will likely enjoy, and the more likely that his wife will be able to be a housewife and enjoy higher fertility. It goes without saying that he will have intelligent sons (see #1) and daughters (see #2).
2. Their daughters will also benefit, because they will themselves be more intelligent, but more importantly, they will be able to have more intelligent sons of their own (see #1)

Society may "lose" out by not utilizing all this female intelligence to its "full potential", but:

1. If we don't know what we are losing out on, then why should it bother us? People living 2000 years ago couldn't concieve of space travel, but it didn't seem to bother them.
2. Perhaps our modern society could have been achieved 2000 years ago. But so what? Are we really better off now than we used to be? And who would be around who could appreciate the fact that modern society had been achieved 2000 years earlier than scheduled? Instead there would only be people complaining that modern society hadn't been achieved 4000 years ago instead of 2000 years ago.
3. Perhaps global warming might have happened 2000 years ago. And it could have been fixed 1900 years ago. But how is it different from global warming happening now and being fixed in 2100 AD?
4. Is it better for a woman to use her intelligence to benefit society, or is it better for her to have 2 sons who will inherit her high intelligence and benefit society?

Falling in love vs. planning to love

The prevailing notion among women is that the only real and worthwhile kind of love is the kind that you "fall" into - essentially stumble into.

I think that men and women have different perspectives on this issue. Most men (those who are not extremely physically attractive anyway) don't "fall" into love. Consciously or unconsciously, they have to work for it. They have to plan it, sometimes over a period of several years. Most men do this in many different ways. Some go the pretend-alpha route, which takes years of study and practice. A lucky few are born psychopaths or born with ambition, leadership qualities, intelligence. All of these carry more risks than rewards. Only a few are physically attractive. These attractive men can wait to "fall" in love. Those men who are only of average attractiveness can't.

In contrast, very few women in history have ever needed to plan in order to get a man. They are just born beautiful. So of course, when they see a man planning to get the woman he likes, they cannot understand it. Don't you just "fall" in love? Why can't you just "be yourself"? Yes, you can afford to wait for that kind of love, if you're a woman. If you're not an attractive man, you'll most likely die alone and childless, especially in today's serial-polygynous societies.

What the heck is Sciencism?

"Sciencism" was an idea I first had about 3 years ago. The idea was to create a new religion based on science. Now, I know that it's been done before, but it's never been done quite like this. Whereas other people (atheists) have tried to create so-called "scientific religions", invariably it meant leaving out the religion part. Because the very last people on Earth who are capable of understanding religion and religious people and the religious way of thinking are atheists. The adherents of these "scientific religions" knew that there wasn't a God, and there was always a hint of a joke in the enterprise. If you do a google search, you will find a few people with such ideas. Needless to say, all of them are dead in the water.

In my religion however, Science is God, and is worshipped as a God would be worshipped. This means that while the first generation of "Sciencists" (note the spelling) know that there isn't a God, they actively indoctrinate and even brainwash their children (the second generation) to believe that Science is God. So just as Christians or Muslims grow up within a Christian or Muslim worldview, the child of a Sciencist grows up within a Sciencistic worldview. From that point onwards, successive generations of Sciencists would believe in Science as God, and would teach their children the same.

But is it really possible to raise children in this manner? Of course it is. There are hundreds of past and present religions, and the adherents of every religion indoctrinate their children into believing in that particular religion. In fact, children could easily be raised with the belief that Mickey Mouse was God. If you teach kids to pray to Mickey Mouse, they will. And if there is a sufficient critical mass of Mickey Mouse believers, then these children would have external validation of their beliefs, and could easily spend their entire lives believing that Mickey Mouse is God.

The idea of creating a new religion is not new. It's been done many times before, and I can think of 3 good examples that originated during the 20th century alone: various cargo cults, Scientology, and Mormonism. To non-believers, it is hard to imagine how Joseph Smith (the founder of Mormonism) and L. Ron Hubbard (the founder of Scientology) could not have been lying. In this sense, they were the "first generation". They knew they were lying. Once they died, subsequent generations had internalized these religious beliefs, and from then on, these beliefs could be transmitted without any further deception. Obviously current believers in these religions are neither lying to themselves nor to others, regardless of whether their beliefs are true or false.

My intention was that Sciencism should follow the same path. I know I'm lying, and the few brave souls who I hope to attract to this cause would also know that I'm lying. They would knowingly lie as well. But we could ease our conscience with the knowledge that it's all done for a good cause. But once these beliefs had been safely transmitted to the next generation, it would perpetuate itself.

So what's the status of this project? It's stalled. I simply don't have the charisma nor the leadership qualities to cold-start this new religion. All my previous efforts have been focused on trying to convince other people. But such a task is nigh impossible, especially for one such as myself who lacks the character traits to be able to pull this off.

But all is not lost. My project may yet come to fruition. I do have a captive audience. My own (future) children.

Abortion: why it's bad for you... but mostly good for everyone else

I'm a firm believer in letting everyone live the way they want to live. As long as they don't interfere in the lives of other people of course. If people want to have abortions, then I believe that they should be able to have them. Human life isn't sacred. Evolution will sort everyone out in the end.

The real question is "who will inherit the earth"? The answer is of course those who don't practice abortion and contraception. If the ultimate goal of all life is reproduction, and if success can be measured in terms of how many children and grandchildren one has, then those who have more children are more successful than those who have fewer or no children. Those who have children when young are also more successful than those who have children when old. Those who use contraception will tend to be less successful than those who don't.

However, if you live in a society you will always have some indirect effect on everyone else in that society. It is not really truly possible to "live as one wishes without interfering in others lives". There is always atleast an indirect effect. There are some problems with abortion and contraception that we need to be aware of.

• You need to ensure that your sons don't marry those who use abortion and contraception. A woman on hormonal contraception may fall in love with your son who may not be a good match for her. If this happens, your son may be in for a rocky marriage.
• You need to ensure that your daughters don't marry men who (through their sexual experience) expect women to be on hormonal contraception. They are likely to treat sex casually, be irresponsible, and have STDs.
• Those on hormonal contraception and who practice abortion are likely to be promiscuous. You need to ensure that your sons don't get involved with promiscuous women because of the risk of STDs. There is some evidence that using hormonal birth control actually increases the risk of contracting HIV due to changes in the user's immune system.
• Those who don't have nor want children will eventually depend on welfare to support them in their old age. Your sons and daughters may be the ones indirectly supporting the elderly through taxes.
• Those who practice abortion and contraception will raise their children in a likewise manner. And it may be that your children will learn these things from their children at school.

When looking for potential matches for your sons and daughters, you must find other families that share your values. Sexual selection is an entire half of evolution (the other half being natural selection). If you disapprove of the way someone is living, then the correct way is to ignore them and ensure that your sons and daughters do not marry them. Trying to force them to live the right way might work on the surface, but the genes responsible for that behaviour will just crop up in succeeding generations.

Life is also a competition for resources. The more of my family there are, the better; the fewer of everyone else there are, the better. So if people think that their genes aren't worth passing on to the next generation, then I heartily agree, and so be it. This is how evolution works.

Why you should homeschool your daughters

These days, schools don't teach girls what they need to know to lead a successful life. Whereas previously the assumption was that girls would get married and raise a couple of children, the new track for women is: girls go to school, then on to college/university, get a degree, a job, spend several years in the workforce, and then and only then can they get married (if they can find a man) and have children (if they aren't too old to bear children by then).

The entire education system is built around this assumption. Most parents aren't really aware of what their children are being taught at school. Today I was talking to a single mother with 2 children, and the older of them, a daughter who is not yet 16 was given a book at school to read, which contained some rather adult themes. On the back cover I read something to the effect of "a single man (the protagonist) finds the best places to score with single women". The mum also told me that the book also contained some suicide, etc. This is not appropriate reading material for a 15 year old. Also, if the mum had not offered to read the book to help with her daughter's book report, she would never have known what her daughter was reading.

The track that today's education system pushes kids onto assumes that marriage and children will only enter a woman's radar when she's in her 30s. Until then, she's meant to experiment with various types of relationships and freely engage in contracepted sex while finding fulfillment at the office. Apparently, when she is experienced enough, she will be good marriage material.

All of this is a recipe for life-long unhappiness, as countless social-science studies have repeatedly shown. "Experienced" women are cynical and jaded women. Cynicism towards the opposite sex is a relationship killer. Studies have shown that pre-marital sex is a significant risk factor for divorce. So is cohabitation. So why not just be celibate until her 30s? Because lack of sex makes women unhappy.

It turns out that this single (and unhappy) lifestyle is enabled by independence. That is, a woman cannot have such a lifestyle if she is dependent. She is more likely to be happy if she transitions from a state of dependence on her father to dependence on her husband. Of course, this assumes that the man she marries is good marriage material.

So how can you ensure that your daughter does not become overly independent? For starters, university shouldn't even be on her radar until her children are fully grown. Unfortunately, schools are in the business of brainwashing children into thinking that career is the only option. Schools also teach young girls a whole heap of things that will not be of any use to them in a marriage. Kids in school also face tremendous pressure to have sex, both from their peers as well as from the curriculum itself.

She will be better off learning skills that will be of use to her in a marriage. The only way to ensure the marriageability of your daughters is to homeschool them. This way, you also have more control of their upbringing.

Rules for 7-couple sets, generalized

I have been thinking for sometime that there shouldn't be any reason to not use the 7-couple rules for 10 or 13 couple sets in scottish country dancing. Generally, the formula is 4+3N, where N is a whole number > 0. This means that the rules can be used for 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, etc. couple sets.

In a 10 couple set, suppose the couples are numbered from 1 to 10.

1. In the first time through, couples 1, 4, 7 are dancing. couple 10 is idle.
2. Second time through, couples 2, 5, 8 are dancing. couple 1 is idle. Couple 2 borrows couple 4 for their dance (who would normally be idle in a 4 couple set). Couple 5 borrows couple 7 for their dance (who would also normally be idle).
3. At the end of the second time through, couple who end up in 9th place slip to the end. Couples who end up in 3rd and 6th place stay where they are.
4. Couples 1,2,3 stay in their little set and bollow couple 4 when needed. Couples 4,5,6 also stay in their own little set and borrow couple 7 when needed. Couples 7,8,9,10 dance according to normal 4 couple set rules, except with borrowing of the 7th couple by the previous set.

If there are 10 couples available, it may be better for one 10 couple set with above rules rather than 2 five-couple sets:

1. If playing music 5 times, the dance takes extra time especially for strathspeys.
2. If only playing music 4 times, the last 2 couples may get to dance only once through.
3. There will be lots of standing around in a 5 couple set, with attendant problems like cooling down muscles.
4. 2 couples are idle at any time in a 5 couple set (40% idle). In a 10 couple set, only 1 couple is idle (10% idle). In a 13 couple set also, only 1 couple is idle (7.7% idle). As the length of the set increases, the percentage of idle couples decreases.
5. Extra dancing within each  3 couple "little set" in a 10 couple set. Of course the flipside is that people get less rest.

13 couple sets could also be advantageous, because the alternatives to a 13 couple set are as follows:

1. 2x 4 couple sets, and 1x 5 couple set. Again, there are various combinations of the above problems.
2. 3x 4 couple sets, and 1 couple don't dance.

Why a lower life expectancy and a higher birth rate is better

Thanks to modern medicine, life expectancy has increased substantially. More children survive childhood, and people live longer. But perhaps it's too good to be true? What if the status quo of higher life expectancy and lower birth rate requires a large expenditure of energy that's ultimately based on petroleum that may not be available in the future?

Childbirth

When more children survive childhood through external factors like caesarean birth, there is less "evolutionary pressure" to be able to survive natural childbirth.

An analogy: suppose some birds somehow get isolated on an island where there are no predators. Eventually, some of them will lose the ability to fly, beause on this island there is no evolutionary pressure to be able to fly. There are no predators to eat the birds that don't fly. Soon the flightless birds will multiply. But this isn't necessarily to say that the flightless birds are somehow inferior. Because nature tends to be economical, it will often (within an ecological niche) get rid of unnecessary features because those features are expensive to maintain. Within an ecological niche such as the ground, a flightless bird is more efficient than a flying bird. So on this island, the ability of flight has been trimmed from some of the birds because it is unnecessary and wasteful. Still there will be flying birds as well, because they occupy a different ecological niche (the air). In the air, obviously the flightless birds don't do well at all but the flying birds do quite well.

In human populations, lack of evolutionary pressure leads to similar outcomes. When childbirth becomes safer through external factors (caesarians, etc), there is less evolutionary pressure for babies to present properly or grow to a safe size within the mother, and there is also less evolutionary pressure for mothers to be able to give birth naturally. Over time, this lack of evolutionary pressure leads to small but significant increase in the average size of babies, and small but significant decreases in the size of the female pelvis. Eventually, a situation may result wherein women cannot give birth naturally any longer and require medical assistance. Whereas now childbirth is a normal function of the human body, eventually it will become a medical emergency.

There are at least two problems that I can see with this situation:

1. It requires the presence of a medical industry that is often parasitic. Parasitic because it is more profitable for those in the medical profession to recommend that women get c-sections even if they are capable of giving birth naturally. Eventually when women lose the ability to surive a normal childbirth, it is the medical profession that will profit the most.
2. If for some reason medical care on a large scale isn't available, then it's possible that unimaginable numbers of women and children will die in childbirth. Returning to the example of the birds on the island, suppose predators such as dogs are introduced to the island. The flightless birds will most likely be wiped out. Similarly, when the childbirth environment changes (lack of medical care), the large proportion of women with pelvises too small or who are giving birth to too-large babies will not survive childbirth.

Just as in the breast-cancer industry that profits from donations to fight breast cancer, the medical industry similarly plays on our emotions when it comes to the safety of women and children in childbirth.

Childhood

Another factor that increases life expectancy is that more children these days survive into adulthood, thanks to antibiotics, vaccines, better hygiene, safety practices, etc. Same as in childbirth,  children who survive to adulthood with the help of external factors no longer face evolutionary pressure to survive to adulthood unassisted. This will lead to weaker immune systems on average, antibiotic overuse and resistance, reliance on vaccines, allergies becoming more common, etc. Soon children will come to rely on external factors to keep them alive because there is no pressure to be self-reliant. Again, the medical industry profits from this state of affairs.

Old age

Still another factor that increases life expectancy is that people live longer. Again, people rely on various (and usually expensive) medical interventions to help them survive to an old age. In fact, the cost of keeping a person alive for a year increases as that person ages. This is because as they get older they require more expensive interventions to keep them alive. It is not unreasonable to suggest that it costs more for one person to live to 100 than for two people to live to 50 each. Again, the big winner here is the medical industry. In order to justify the spending required, they play on our emotions, just as they do when it comes to women and children.

There are several disadvantages to having a large elderly population, apart from the required amount of medical intervention. The elderly are also less productive and a lot of welfare spending goes to them. And of course someone has to pick up the bill for this, and that is the taxpayer.

Higher birth rate

Thus far we've considered the factors that raise life-expectancy. If we were to overhaul this system, it would result in a lower life expectancy. But if more people are dying, then there will need to be some way to sustain population levels. Thus a higher birth rate is justified. However, it has to be done the right way. It makes little sense to encourage single mothers to have lots of children, because those children will ultimately wind up costing society far more than having a higher life expectancy. I believe that, done the right way, a higher birth rate will make people happier. People will be more productive (because younger people are more productive on average), and people will be more health conscious. It is well known that the more you take care of someone, the less care they take of themselves. It shifts the responsibility of survival to the individual, where it belongs.

With a lower life expectancy and a higher birth rate, government could go back to the ideal of "defending and protecting the right of an individual to life, liberty, and property", as explained by Frederic Bastiat. Such a setup requires less taxes, less government interference, less welfare, less medicine, less energy expenditure, more robust children and therefore people, etc. People will also have children earlier, which also leads to positive outcomes for children (better genes and parenting).

Establishing colonies beyond Earth

We have let a great opportunity go by.

When petroleum was discovered, it was a huge boon to mankind. It was a concentrated from of energy and raw material that had thousands of different uses. It was soon used to make and run pretty much everything.

Before petroleum, we could only use renewable energy. Nearly all of the renewable energy comes from the sun at a constant rate. Human populations were limited by the amount of renewable energy the earth received. Populations grew until food production maxed out, and food production was limited by the sun's energy.

When petroleum was discovered, it meant a several-hundred-fold increase in the amount of available energy. Food production no longer depended on purely renewable energy. Food production could now be accelerated by using artificial fertilizers. It also made automobiles feasible. It enabled travel by aeroplane. And it fueled the space industry.

Some of the greatest accomplishments of mankind was in space. Sending astronauts to the moon (and returning them to earth), launching satellites to distant planets, landing rovers that performed scientific experiments and measurements, etc. All of these were greatly facilitated by energy from petroleum. In fact the space industry may not ever have existed if petroleum had never been discovered.

Now the petroleum is starting to run out. Or more accurately, it's becoming more and more expensive to extract. It is likely that without petroleum, space research will not be feasible anymore. And without the space industry and space research, we may all be in danger.

What is the nature of this threat? Well it is well known that meteorites often strike the earth. Most of these are tiny and burn up in the earth's atmosphere. But rarely some are big enough to survive the violent entry into the earth's atmosphere to impact the earth. Very rarely, they may be big enough to pose a threat. The damage they could do is immense. Meteorites often travel through space at 40 kilometers per second.

Throughout our planet's 4 billion year history, it has been bombarded by meteorites, asteroids, and even other planets. After life formed 3.6 billlion years ago, each impact caused massive extinction events. Life always came back, but it was generally the more complex life-forms that suffered most. It is not unreasonable to suggest that humanity may suffer serious losses if not downright extinction if a sufficiently large sized body were to impact the earth.

The only real way to ensure that humanity doesn't go extinct is to form colonies on other planets or in space. Unfortunately these ventures require massive amounts of energy, which we very soon may not have any longer. The petroleum is instead being wasted on maintaining an excessively high standard of living. When the petroleum runs out, we will have to go back to using renewable energy from the sun. That level of energy will not be able to sustain the current food industry, and it is likely that large numbers of people will starve. And it will be difficult for any government to justify spending in space research when people are starving.

Common interests

I used to think that the kind of woman I'd like as a wife was someone who had interests in common with me. I think this is what most people are looking for.

Other people think that it's better to not have common interests. These people feel that it's better to do different things because that way they will have more to talk about. But I don't see how you could have a meaningful conversation with your significant other about something that they are not particularly interested in. I have also met a few people whose marriages failed because of different interests. Face it, when you both are off doing different things, then you two are more likely to come into contact with other people who will threaten your marriage.

But while I think that having common interests is a good thing, I now believe that it's not quite as simple as that. I think it's a better idea to have a combination of: the same "social interests" but different "skill interests".

What do I mean by social interests? Anything social that both of you enjoy doing, and which enables you to spend time together. For me, it's dancing. I would like to meet a woman who enjoys dancing as much as I do. For other people it might be sports, or bike-riding, etc. I think that for the majority of people, those who do things together stay together. I know of several real-life examples.

On the other hand, you are better off with someone who has different "skill interests". These are activities that you have a talent in and enjoy doing by yourself. Some examples: cooking, working with cars, gardening, computers, etc. While these things can sometimes have a social aspect (you might attend a computer convention or a gardening expo or whatever), exercising these skills gives pleasure even when done as a solitary activity. If you feel that you need the presence of other people in order to enjoy some activity, then it's probably not a skill interest. For example, I don't consider cooking to be a skill interest, because I only gain pleasure from it when there are other people in the kitchen as well. If I'm cooking by myself, then it's a chore.

So the idea is that when a man and a woman come together, each having a different set of 5 skill interests, then they are bringing a total of 10 different skill interests to the table. If on the other hand they both had the same set of 5 skill interests, then they are only bringing 5 skill interests into the marriage. The more skill interests brought into the mariage, the less the need for expensive outsourcing.

When looking for a potential wife or husband, I don't think it's a good idea to go to those places where people usually go with the aim of meeting single people, such as bars. Chances are, you won't meet many with similar social interests. In fact you might meet people who are wont to lie about their interests, just as job interviewees do. The best way to meet people is to just do the things you normally enjoy doing, and eventually you will meet someone you like. If they're there it probably means that they like being there and are enjoying the activity, ie. they are not faking. It will also give you an opportunity to observe them and their interactions with others, which can be useful clues in determining their marriageability.

However this doesn't always work, and my own case is a good example. I enjoy folk dancing, but it's something that only old people do. The average age of the folk dancing community is probably 60. I'm an anomaly there because I'm considerably younger (34) than most people there. There is more I could say, but I won't right now because it's not the right time.

So if you're not having success in your current social activity, you might have to try a different social activity to see if you can expand your list of social interests. Thus I tried african drumming and newer forms of dancing. But even though I enjoyed these activities immensely, I still felt a bit alone in these communities, so for me they weren't really "social activities". So I gave them up and went back to folk dancing.

Marriageable age

Before feminism, a man would be considered to be marriageable in his late teens or early 20s. He would have done some schooling and then perhaps apprenticeship in some trade and would be earning a family wage. He knew what was in store for him and what was expected of him. Of course not everyone followed this format, but most men were ready for marriage by their mid 20s at the latest.

Nowadays, a lot of men aren't ready for marriage until their early 30s. The average age at first marriage is now around 29 for men.

While the average age at first marriage is 29 for men, this is not to be confused with "age of marriageability". Since a large percentage of first marriages end in divorce, and since most divorces are initiated by women, it is likely that a lot of men are unmarriageable when they marry. So the average age of marriageability is probably a couple of years beyond 29. In any case, many men "grow up" by their mid-30s, and by that time are reasonably successful in their careers. Experience in the workforce adds up and their earning potential and wealth increases.

On the other hand, the average age of marriageability for women has gone in the opposite direction. Before feminism, a 25 year old single woman would have been considered to be quite marriageable. In Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, Charlotte marries at the age of 27. True, she was considered by some of her contemporaries to be an "old maid", but still, her marriageability would not have been in any doubt.

What did "marriageability" of a woman mean in Jane Austen's day?

• She had domestic skills and could look after a home.
• She wanted children.
• She was a virgin and she had not had any ex-boyfriends or husbands
• She didn't have children from previous relationships.
• She had not cohabited with anyone.
• She didn't have any emotional baggage.
• She didn't have a career.
• She didn't have student debts.

By these standards, a woman living today, of the same age as Charlotte (27) when she married Collins, would be woefully unmarriageable - and the passage of time would only make her more so.

Send your sons to boys schools

After doing a lot of reading up on social issues, I've learned a great deal about the state of schools in western countries. Schools have been very feminized to make it more conducive to learning for girls. Unfortunately what's also become apparent is that boys are very different from girls. Boys learn differently from girls. Boys and girls also learn at different speeds. Favouring one will disfavour the other. You might as well try to train cats and dogs together. The feminization of schools has resulted in entire generations of males being let down by the school system.

In the US, the feminization of schools has extended to physical activity and not just learning. Many schools abolished recess and cut down on physical activity. This has resulted in large numbers of boys diagnosed with ADHD and similar disorders because they have no way to burn off their energy.

Many extreme feminists are more than happy with this situation they created. But unless they're lesbians, they will soon find that - in Warren Farrell's words - "when one sex wins, both sexes lose."

As I've pointed out in a previous post, men need a proper education in order to fulfill their reproductive role. That is, to succeed in their ultimate goal of reproduction. But women also need men who have the capacity to provide for a family. A woman can't succeed in her ultimate goal of reproduction without a man's help. What the current school system is doing is creating generations of men who will grow up to be useless to women. This is already a problem and women are taking notice.

What should you do about your sons? Because boys learn differently from girls, they need to be taught separately from girls. In boys schools, they are also more likely to be exposed to male teachers, and that's a good thing because boys need plenty of male role models. Boys schools are also better equipped for sports and other physical activity. They are also able to study without being distracted by the girls.

Should you send your daughters to university?

What is life? If you're like most people, it's not what you think it is. The answer is reproduction.

"Life – and everything in it – is a means to the ultimate goal of reproduction. Life is important, and we have to live, only because we can’t reproduce if we are dead. There is no other ultimate purpose to life. Reproduction is the goal, and life and health are but means to it..."(1)

This becomes obvious when we consider all life on earth. Plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, etc. Since us humans are animals too, it follows that this goal applies to us as well. Of course, this assumes that the theory of evolution is true. I am not going to try and prove the theory here, because the topic has been adequately dealt with by other people.

Life is not about any of these things: fun, happiness, education, money, power, love, charity, entertainment, travel, God, etc. They are only important insofar as they assist in the achievement of the primary goal. People may disagree with this statement, but that's ok. Just as chess pieces are oblivious to the rules of chess, most people are oblivious to the game of life being played and the rules of the game. It doesn't matter, because just as chess can be won or lost in spite of the chess pieces being oblivious to the game, the game of life can be won or lost in spite of the living organisms (animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, etc) being oblivious to the game of life.

Feminists have always been envious of the male role. This envy is understandable, because it does seem like men really get to have more fun in life. They get more and better education. This education allows them to have careers which allows them to use their full intellectual potential. They have more money. They have more status and power. Everything they do seems more important.

But what feminists don't choose to realize, is that all of these things are necessary for a man's reproduction. None of these things are required for a woman's reproduction.

"...daughters’ future reproductive success is largely determined by their youth and physical attractiveness. Once they are conceived with particular genes that influence their physical attractiveness, there is very little that parents can do to increase their daughters’ future reproductive success, beyond keeping them alive and healthy.  There is absolutely nothing that parents can do to affect the progression of time that determines the daughters’ age [and thus fertility], nor is there anything they can do after the conception to influence the daughters’ physical appearance (once again, beyond keeping them healthy)."(2)

Demands have always been greater on men to perform for women. If they failed in this task, they still had a trump card: they could use force because they had nothing to lose and everything to gain (which is why more criminals are men - it is written in their DNA). If they failed in that as well, they died childless. None of us are descended from losers who could neither be famous nor infamous.

Men display, women choose. This can even be seen in nearly all animal species. A man without an education cannot get a high-paying job. A man without status, power, wealth, etc. will not be able to attract a mate. This is especially true today, with widespread polygamy. Incidentally, while women envy all the good things about men, they don't envy all the bad things.

The increase in the numbers of women seeking jobs has resulted in far more men without jobs. Without jobs, these men are unmarriageable. With jobs, the women are also unmarriageable because they have very little reproductive potential. So this is a lose-lose situation.

But what has all this got to do with educating your daughters? If you have both sons and daughters, then you are better off investing in your sons' education instead of spreading the money thinly and giving everyone a mediocre education. Education will enhance your sons' reproductive chances, whereas it will not improve your daughters' chances and instead reduce them.

This is especially important today, when virtually no one can directly afford a university education. Nearly everyone has to borrow money to pay for it. By educating your daughters, you will be saddling her future husband with crippling student debt that will in most cases not be used to its full potential. Keep in mind that if she chooses to work, it will usually be some years before the debt is paid off and she breaks even. By that point, she will want to have children but cannot do it wholeheartedly because so much has been invested in her career ("what was it all for?"). And since there is no one taking care of the domestic side of things, an unhappy marriage will result. The only winners are the education industry and the banking industry.

Even if you had the ability to pay for university education with hard cash, it is far better for your daughter to get married to a marriageable man and then give the couple that money to pay off their mortgage.

Not sending daughters to university also has large-scale society-wide impacts. For example:

1. Large numbers of women going to university has driven up university fees for everyone due to the greater demand for higher education.
2. When women are financially independent, they have less need for men's financial power or potential. Thus they give sex away cheaply. (If a shop owner suddenly wins a billion dollars in a lottery, he will be more than happy to let you have anything in his shop for free.) This soon leads to a state where men no longer have much incentive to work for sex. This is one of the causes of delayed adolescence seen in men in their 20s and sometimes 30s.
3. Educated women marry late, and thus spend a large portion of their lives single. This lifestyle is wasteful and drives up demand for housing which in turn drives up house prices. And for every single woman out there, there is also a single man having the same effect on the economy.
4. Married women vote for social-conservative political parties. This is because social conservatives prefer a small government and lower taxes: "Married women preferred Bush; unmarried women overwhelmingly preferred Gore. Why? Voting motivations are complex, but Gore promised more government protection, and unmarried women often seek the government as a substitute husband - or substitute protector. In contrast, forty percent of married women do not work outside the home when their children are young. So the married woman is more likely to care about her husband's paycheck not being taxed thus encouraging a vote for Bush (Bush's mode of being a married woman's protector is to protect her husband's ability to protect). In different ways, both Gore and Bush sought to be women's protector, each receiving the greater support from the type of woman who felt most protected by him."(3) On the other hand, social-liberal governments tend to raise taxes and use that money to spend on welfare. That is, they will take money from your daughter and her husband and use that money to raise other people's children. That doesn't sound like a good reproductive plan does it?
5. By far the biggest reason you should not send your daughters to university is because universities are breeding grounds of feminism.

---

1. Why Is Health Care a Right?
2. Why Are Older Parents More Likely to Have Daughters?
3. The Myth Of Male Power by Dr. Warren Farrell

How feminism widened the rich-poor gap

When women entered the workforce en masse starting from the 60s and 70s, the women took up many jobs that would have otherwise gone to men. Feminists claim that women don't take jobs from men. They say that the economy just expands to create more jobs. But this is not true - as the recent recession in the US showed. While Obama's policies created many jobs, feminists demanded that most of them go to women, even though it was mostly men who lost their jobs during the recession. Why would feminists demand that most of the jobs go to women? Wasn't it they who claimed that the economy would just expand to accommodate everyone?

"Assortative mating"  and hypergamy are important parts of female reproductive behaviour. It is commonly known that women are more likely to marry those with more or equal status to themselves. For most people, status means economic class.

Lets take a trivial example. Suppose in the economy there are 2 jobs, each paying $100. There are also 2 men and 2 women. If the men get the jobs, then female hypergamy ensures that each woman chooses one of the men. But more importantly, both women are happy, and both men are also happy. Each person effectively has $50, assuming that each family is taken as one economic unit (so if each economic unit makes $100, then that money is split evenly among everyone in that economic unit).

Suppose instead that one man gets one of the jobs and one woman gets the other job. Now this situation actually causes problems:

1. If the woman without a job marries the guy with a job, both are happy. The other woman is unhappy because she's stuck with a man who doesn't have a job, and the man's unhappy because he's unable to perform his role as breadwinner. The man is also in poverty because he doesn't have a job. It is a given that the single woman will not marry him. In this situation, the married man and woman each have $50. The single woman has $100 and the single man has $0. Now we are starting to see gaps and economic classes start to form.
2. If the woman with a job marries the guy with a job, both are happy. But the other two have nothing; they are living in povery. The single woman is also very unlikely to marry the single man. Here, the married man and married woman each have $100, and both singles have $0.

What if both women get the jobs and the men don't? In addition to economic inequality, everyone is also unhappy (money doesn't make women happy). This society will also eventually implode because when women are focussed on career, they can't perform the essential "mother" role. When a woman tries to be a man and a woman at the same time, she will most likely fail at both.

Feminists made a big mistake by not understanding the nature of production and reproduction. Production is only the means to an end. Reproduction is the ultimate goal of all life on earth. Women have reproductive power which can only bear fruit when combined with a man's productive power. But why do women need men's productive power? Because they can't exercise both productive and reproductive power at the same time. A woman's reproductive power is incomplete without a man's productive power (as a single mother with small children knows all too well).

Pregnancy: the new "disability"

Just read an article "Pregnant, and Pushed Out of a Job". The author seems to take a lot of things for granted and thinks that women should be entitled to a host of different things:

1. She can be less productive, and still get paid the same as everyone else. When a worker in a company does less work, everyone else has to pick up the slack. So while she's doing less work, everyone else is doing more, and yet everyone apparently should be paid the same.
2. She can keep her job despite there being many other unemployed women out there who are more reliable, who do more work, and who may need the money even more than she does.
3. She can avoid many of the job responsibilities (like heavy lifting and climbing ladders) and thereby shift the burden onto her co-workers, with no reduction in pay, and her employer is also not allowed to fire her.
4. She deserves special treatment because she's a single mother. Even if she deliberately chose to become a single mother. Her employer is to pay the price for the decisions that she has made. Her employer is responsible even if it was beyond her and her employer's control (her husband died or had an injury, for instance).

The author also wishes to blackmail us by saying that if they are not granted all of the above, they will inflict their dysfunctional children upon society by not breastfeeding them. Never mind that breastfeeding should be ideally done for about 2 years.

Then there is the plea for charity: "Pregnancy-related accommodations also promote economic security for families." Why this is should be an employer's problem is never explained.

There also seems to be a bias against hiring women with small children. You don't say!

Apparently, pregnancy is a disability. And this is the only "disability" that the victim deliberately inflicted upon herself.

Depends on the industry, but employing pregnant workers is generally worse for a company's bottom line. Contrary to the author's claims, there is more turnover, not less. There is less loyalty because more-productive workers are being paid the same as those who are less productive, and because they have to pick up the slack for no extra pay. And for obvious reasons, productivity is reduced. Morale is reduced. There are also more overhead costs associated with hiring and firing more workers.

But the problems associated with employing pregnant women aren't limited to the workplace. Employed women don't get married (to men; they get married to the government instead). They choose to become single mothers. Their children don't get breastfed adequately, and get put into daycare. And so on.

There is also the claim that making workplace accommodations for pregnancy results in healthier pregnant women. Ohkay, but making workplace accommodations for dolphins results in healthier dolphins. And making workplace accommodations for non-pregnant workers results in healthier non-pregnant workers. But given a choice between pregnant women, dolphins, and non-pregnant women, why should the employer prefer the pregnant woman?

There are some important voices that are not being heard.

1. What do her co-workers think? Are they inclined to take on additional work (like heavy lifting and climbing ladders) for no extra pay?
2. What does the employer think of the increased costs involved?
3. What do the customers think of  having to pay more because of higher costs associated with employing pregnant women?

There are some things that are impossible to articulate thanks to the climate of political correctness.

1. In a normal family, the man is responsible for earning the money. The woman is never under any obligation to earn money, unless he is disabled and can't work (in which case the family could be eligible for welfare). This idea is not so far-fetched. It was the norm in the stable nuclear family structure of the 1950s and previous.
2. The majority of single mothers today deliberately made choices that resulted in their single mother status. Either they chose to become single mothers, or they chose unreliable men. Only a minority of women are single mothers for reasons truly beyond their control.