Chapter 6: Human evolutionary models

People have been trying to uncover the mystery of human evolution. Adam Smith, Darwin and Dawkins and other fathers provided some solution. I will try to explain my theories in more general way. In the previous chapter we discussed social evolution between sellers and buyers from the micro perspective, and in this chapter, we discuss the relationship between evolution and time from a macro perspective. I do believe that the basic idea of human evolution is a superposition of countless cycles that “Original equilibrium—Break equilibrium—Maintain pseudo equilibrium—Return to new equilibrium”. We can call this “An Evolutionary Cycle.” Any product must go through a life cycle stage: Introduction—Growth—Maturity—Decline, and time is also a cycle: There are four seasons in a year: Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter and there are 24 hours in a day, and every life has a cycle from birth to death. Similarly, Human evolution also has periodicity. You will find an interesting conclusion here: History may not repeat itself but it does rhyme.  

The theory of “Human evolution platform”

The Following Figure 6.1 illustrates human evolution platform from the perspective of time. Black solid lines represent real equilibriums where both parties in the game have no incentive to deviate: It is doing the best it can to maximize profit, given what its competitor is doing. For example, under system of patriarchy and polygamy, women provided sexual-services to men while men feed women, and woman did not have the incentive to work outside because she knew she had to be sex slave in any case, and at the same time men did not have the incentive to not support women materially because he would lose the sex-service if he chooses to not feed women. The essence of marriage is prostitution, and the only difference between prostitution and marriage is in the price and the length of time the contract runs. For both the sexual act is a service; the one is hired for life by one man; the other has several clients who pay her by per time or per night. The essence of both is the transaction of money and sexual service. Marriage or prostitution becomes a matter of mutual benefit under patriarchy and polygamy. Symbiotic relationships of mutual benefit are the characteristic of real equilibriums. Neither partner could be better off without the other. The evolution of associations of mutual benefit is theoretically easy to imagine if the favors are given and received simultaneously. In general, associations of mutual benefit are steady states if each partner can get more out than he puts in. The biggest mistake is that people misunderstand real equilibrium as a result of the idea of “reciprocal altruism”, and in fact as a result of the idea of “self-interest”. Each buyer and seller in a market is concerned only about his or her own welfare; they are together led by an “invisible hand” to an equilibrium that maximizes the total benefits to buyers and sellers. This shows self-love and general welfares are not contradictory under equilibrium state because trade can make everyone better off, so the problem became how to split the surplus between the seller and buyer. 

The equilibrium would generally last for a long time, until a mutation breaks the equilibrium. It may be a natural disaster or a sudden change in productivity. In fact, fluctuations are irregular, and they are almost impossible to predict with much accuracy in short-run. The authorities have manipulated the rules of the game to create new winners and new losers for their own interests. The authorities choose a compromise for their own interests because of the idea of “cruel bind”. All the concessions of the authorities, all from all, based on you can not completely eliminate them because letting them live is the result of trade-off of the authorities. It is simple to understand if you get the benefit of others, you must pay part of it, especially the survival necessities. The interests of the original pattern were broken, not yet formed a new pattern of interests, the interests of creating a diverse variety of social conflict. Now we enter the pseudo-equilibrium, and red solid lines represent the pseudo-equilibrium. In order to gain more time for preparation for next real equilibrium, all kind of absurd lies and cults emerge trying to keep going pseudo-equilibrium, such as religion, love, morality, G-spot and vagina orgasms and so on. At the telophase of pseudo-equilibrium, God will send a savior to end this chaotic situation. The mission of Savior is to get preparation for human from spiritual aspect, and break the pseudo-equilibrium and points out the next real-equilibrium. It is hard to say how long pseudo-equilibrium will last (T2-T1), depending on a number of factors because vested interests will do everything possible or impossible to maintain the pseudo-equilibrium. By the way, pseudo-equilibrium only belongs to our human evolution, and there is no pseudo-equilibrium in non-human animals' evolution, because natural selection can completely eliminate the losers by death. If we watched a population for many generations, we would see a series of occasional flips from one stable state to the other. There is no mystery about this. It had to happen by definition that the essence of natural selection was simply a selection of stable forms and a rejection of unstable ones. The losers are quickly penalized to extinction by natural selection, if they don't have effective counter-strategies. As a result, occasionally mutant gene does succeed in invading the set: it succeeds in spreading through the gene pool. There is no religion, no love, no morality, but only life or death, so all animals are not an inextricable chaos because they have a clear test: Survival of the fittest. Another thing different from animals' world is the existence of threshold, represented by magenta dotted lines. The only function of the threshold is to absorb any deviations less than the value of threshold, as same as in nerve conduction that a stimulus must reach the threshold to cause a response in nerve conduction, or nerve conduction will fall into chaos if any tiny stimulus would cause a response. We have known that gene mutation in animals is not directional, and most of gene mutations are harmful while only a few of them are favorable, but there is no need having any threshold in animals' world because natural selection must penalize the harmful gene mutations by completely eliminating them, because animals face the rule of life and death that the losers must be penalized to be dead. We must admit that the vast majority of social mutations are harmful and very few of them are favorable, but the same logic doesn't work in human world, because we face the rule of contract transaction that you can't completely eliminate the losers who are crowded out by the economy market. In fact, a certain proportion of reasonable people is beneficial to social stability, once a population reaches this zone, it will be sucked inevitably towards the sensible stable point, but trouble comes when the unreasonable people, including sellers and buyers, reaches a certain proportion, so women are half victims, half accomplices. More and more failed individuals join together to form a group, and they resort to violence to create hard troubles for the winners from market economy. They are short-sighted and aim at breaking the going equilibrium, but they don't have the abilities to bring human into the next real equilibrium. What about the threshold in pseudo-equilibrium? Free speech but no free behavior. Prohibition of Sex-selective abortion is also a barrier to deter free exit, aiming at keeping enough receptacles for men. In short, creating a threshold is necessary in any human societies. There is a transitional period of instability (T2-T3), represented by solid blue lines, terminating in a new evolutionarily stable set. The transitional period lasts a very short time, because the motive power of the process of natural selection completely eliminates the losers immediately. In short in animals' world, a new useful gene mutation spreads through the gene pool immediately, and losers and fools must be punished by nature. In the end of human pseudo-equilibrium, we are ready both in material and spiritual aspects, therefore we humans also quickly into the next real-equilibrium. The only difference from animal's world is some people would enter the new real-equilibrium and some people would go back to previous real-equilibrium, because they have the so-called “human rights”. Frankly speaking, I don't think the P-V model will disappear when the truth of female orgasm comes out because the barbarians would resort to rape as same as they resorted to violence.  

The theory of “Matching principle”

Next, I'm going to elaborate on another theory from another point of view. Apparently, human being as the most advanced life on the earth is not the only animal, because Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' is really a special case of a more general law of survival of the stable. The universe is populated by stable things. In other words, all living creatures now are in stable state, and there is more than one alternative stable point on the world. Similarly, the United States as the most advanced civilization system on the earth is not the only system, because Middle Eastern, East Asian and even African civilizations are not dead yet. In other words, these civilizations are in stable state, and there must be more than one alternative stable point in human evolution. Why? Dawkins gave two examples in The Selfish Gene to clarify the importance of matching: 

One oarsman on his own cannot win the Oxford and Cambridge boat race. He needs eight colleagues. Each one is a specialist who always sits in a particular part of the boat—bow or stroke or cox etc. Rowing the boat is a cooperative venture, but some men are nevertheless better at it than others. Suppose a coach has to choose his ideal crew from a pool of candidates, some specializing in the bow position, others specializing as cox, and so on…. One of the qualities of a good oarsman is teamwork, the ability to fit in and cooperate with the rest of a crew. This may be just as important as strong muscles…. Suppose it is important in a really successful crew that the rowers should coordinate their activities by means of speech. Suppose further that, in the pool of oarsmen at the coach's disposal, some speak only English and some speak only German. The English are not consistently better or worse rowers than the Germans. But because of the importance of communication, a mixed crew will tend to win fewer races than either a pure English crew or a pure German crew…. The coach does not realize this. All he does is shuffle his men around, giving credit points to individuals in winning boats, marking down individuals in losing boats. Now if the pool available to him just happens to be dominated by Englishmen it follows that any German who gets into a boat is likely to cause it to lose, because communications break down. Conversely, if the pool happened to be dominated by Germans, an Englishman would tend to cause any boat in which he found himself to lose. What will emerge as the overall best crew will be one of the two stable states—pure English or pure German, but not mixed. Superficially it looks as though the coach is selecting whole language groups as units. This is not what he is doing. He is selecting individual oarsmen for their apparent ability to win races. It so happens that the tendency for an individual to win races depends on which other individuals are present in the pool of candidates. Minority candidates are automatically penalized, not because they are bad rowers, but simply because they are minority candidates. 

For example, a number of attributes are desirable in an efficient carnivore's body, among them sharp cutting teeth, the right kind of intestine for digesting meat, and many other things. An efficient herbivore, on the other hand, needs flat grinding teeth, and a much longer intestine with a different kind of digestive chemistry. In a herbivore gene pool, any new gene that conferred on its possessors sharp meat-eating teeth would not be very successful. This is not because meat-eating is universally a bad idea, but because you cannot efficiently eat meat unless you also have the right sort of intestine, and all the other attributes of a meat-eating way of life. Genes for sharp, meat-eating teeth are not inherently bad genes. They are only bad genes in a gene-pool that is dominated by genes for herbivorous qualities. 

In the above two examples, we can conclude that there is no such gene called “good” or “bad”, but only “match” or not. They exhibit the mutual dependence of the vital actions, and points out how these are maintained in due balance. Everything must be good or bad, right or wrong, depending on its accordance or discordance with its organic environment. This is a subtle, complicated idea. It is complicated because the 'environment' of a gene consists largely of other genes, each of which is itself being selected for its ability to cooperate with its environment of other genes. Apparently, it is important for the rowers to cooperate with each other in boat race, and similarly sharp cutting teeth and the right kind of intestine for digesting meat match each other very well in carnivore's body, while flat grinding teeth and a much longer intestine match each other very well in herbivore's body. More than that, I love to see the show of animal worlds, and I find a universal law that the researchers wear masks when they get into forest because some viruses which get along well with human may cause death on animals. Vice versa. Isolation is always a conservative stability strategy. Following the same logic, aside from the questions of human rights and dictatorship, we must recognize that these so-called backward civilizations are independent and in different stable states. I admit that the Western civilization is advanced, but does not match the underdeveloped nations. Progressive civilization may be not so much a steady upward climb as a series of discrete steps from stable plateau to stable plateau as same as energy transition in quantum mechanics. The following Figure 6.2 is my matching principle in evolution of human civilization. I admit that I am not a progressive person because I am going to defend patriarchy, slavery, polygamy, inequality, dictator, middle east civilization and colonization and so on. 

All things are unified and try to look for the inner connection between two things seemingly nothing on the surface. Next, I try to use quantum mechanics to explain the differences between civilizations in the world. Firstly, look at the black thick lines in above figure which represent the different levels of human civilization. We can regard E0 as the ground state of the barbarous civilization where non-human animals take the “Survival of the fittest” as the only rule; we can regard the E1, E2, E3 and all the way down to En as excited states with different civilization level. All states are bound to the theory of “self-love”, and we can view the potential civilization level (En) is set to real freedom at infinite distance from E0, so people can't have absolute freedom at each civilization level wherever you are, and all levels with different civilization are all in stable states if without any outside influence. Of course, ground state is in absolutely stable state, and other excited states are in relatively stable states, because any excited state tends to spontaneously drop from one excited state to a lower civilization level or by a series of transitions to successively lower levels, ending at the ground state. Generally speaking, when a society drops from a higher level to a lower level it gains more stability by giving up some certain civilizations; conversely when a society evolves from a lower level to a higher level it enters less stability by having some certain civilizations. In order to move from one civilization level to another, the society must gain or lose an amount of civilization exactly equal to the civilization difference between the two levels. Civilization transition is like discontinuous “jumps” from one quantum state to another. For example, if a society wants to jump from E0 to E1, it must only absorb certain quantum civilization exactly matched to the difference (E1-E0) between E0 and E1. Additional, there are some smaller ladders, named V0-1, V0-2, V0-3 and V0-4, between E0 and E1 which present by blue solid lines called sub-states, maybe some an industry innovation such as agricultural technology mutation or computer technology, and furthermore there are some much smaller ladders, named R0-1, R0-2, R0-3 and R0-4, between E0 and V0-1 which present by grey solid lines called sub-sub-states, maybe some innovation within an industry such as CPU mutation, memory bank mutation or motherboard mutation. Apparently, society must absorb so big change civilizations of E1-E0 if it wants to jump from E0 to E1. The larger the civilizations of the states between which the society jumps, the bigger the social transforms, so the ideal social evolution is a small step by small step. In my view, different civilizations developed independently at different levels, and the fact that each civilization is not extinct yet illustrates all elements match each other very well in its independent stable state. Material civilization and spiritual civilization should be co-evolution. 

So why is the world so chaotic now? The answer is simple: Mismatch problem. There are basically four civilizations which evolved independently: The most advanced Western Civilization, East Asian Civilization, Middle Eastern civilization and Primitive civilization of Africa. After the segregation was broken by Western dominated capitalism, the spread of material civilization from the high level to low level is much faster than the spread of spiritual civilization. This time lag leads to the chaos of the world. For example, western civilization is in E1 state where Americans can have guns because they don't abuse the guns, and they can have dogs because they don't let dogs interfere with others, and they can drive cars because they obey the traffic rules, and so on. Guns and dogs are no problem and innocent, and the problem is who owns them and whether they have the ability to control them? In short, the material civilization and spiritual civilization are perfect matched in western nations. Because of the global trade, material civilization quickly spread around the world, and Chinese, African and even terrorist in Middle East quickly used advanced weapons, cars and so on, and then they started to abuse these advanced things if they are free to use them. Without advanced weapons, the terrorists don't have any threat armed with sticks because maybe they are in V0-1 state where sticks and their spiritual civilization are matched very well. The most troublesome thing is mismatching problem that terrorists have advanced weapons instead of sticks, because they have already accepted the western material civilization but no matched western spiritual civilization, and then trouble comes. For example, without the modern weapons brought by the western colonists, there would be no Rwandan Genocide, because the sticks are not powerful enough to kill one million people during less than two months. Of course, there is other reason for Rwandan Genocide, and I am going to talk about it later. Similarly, sticks can't destroy all humans, but nuclear weapons can. The more high-tech, such as viruses and nukes, the higher civilization holders are needed. The invention of electricity must require people to use it, or else it must be electrocuted. Marx also expounded the concept of matching, and if I am looking at a mode of production, we can characterize them by the correspondence of the forces and relations of production; a certain level of forces of production requires a certain type of relations of production, a certain type of relationship between individuals. To be honest, Chinese don't have automobile culture because maybe they are in V0-2 state where bicycles and quality of Chinese people are matched very well. The main contradiction of Chinese Society is that while the buildings and technology are modernized, but the behavior and the general qualities of the typical Chinese are still the same as before. In other words, the modernized material civilization and decadent Chinese don't match each other, so in order to keep maintain stability the government has to intervene. If the government does not choose regulation, society will inevitably fall into chaos, so dictatorship is inevitable. In other words, when in a system where spiritual civilization and material civilization would lead to imbalance, there is a need to have a strong authority to compensate the gap. The bigger gap would be between spiritual civilization and material civilization, the more they need control. Dictatorship is like a compensation mechanism arranged by God in mismatching system. What would happen if the lack of regulatory compensation? There is a very terrible result: Civilization degeneration. Magenta arrows represent this degeneration in the above figure. Without powerful regulation when spiritual civilization and material civilization don't match, it means the whole society enters a virtual state should built on lies, and faces three scenarios after the burst of lies: ①Rayleigh degeneration which returns to the starting state (V0-2); ②Stokes degeneration which returns to more advanced state (V0-4); ③Antistokes degeneration which returns to the more backward state (E0). Apparently, the last one is the worst. For example, dictatorship, spiritual civilization and material civilization in China now are matched in V0-2 where people began to have a sense of private ownership and property rights, but suddenly China takes the election system, and like I said before the essence of the election is the tyranny of the majority to the minority, election must lead to civilization degeneration maybe back to barbaric civilization (E0), like proletarian violent revolution again, because China has a triangle social structure now instead of a strong middle class. That is why democracy doesn't work in China now. China had a bitter lesson: One hundred years ago, the Chinese bourgeoisie overthrew the Qing dynasty (V0-1), and try to establish bourgeois regime (Vv), but at that time, the national quality is not enough to maintain Vv, so society soon came back to E0 which is lower civilization than V0-1. Proletarian violent revolution is definitely a typical throwback opposed the contract civilization in human evolution by giving up some existing civilization. As long as the vast majority of people find themselves able to benefit from the contract society, they will be willing to abide by the spirit of contract, otherwise they would choose using advanced weapons to return to the violence state because they can benefit from violence. Keep in mind that violent civilization belongs to ground state and all other civilization which created by human beings are in excited states. To be honest, compared with violent civilization, contract civilization is very fragile so victims must be required in human evolution. As a destiny taker, the best strategy for any given individual was to follow suit. Evolution is very difficult and slow, but the degradation of civilization is very lethal and fast, and The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China was an example. Don't be too haste in human evolution, because you would be a prophet if you take one step ahead, a pioneer if you take two steps ahead, a martyr if you take three steps ahead. There is an old saying in China, “More haste, less speed.” Direction is more important than effort. When Chiang Kai-shek lost the mainland and retreated to Taiwan, he summarized one lesson of his failure in his memoirs, “Forcing democracy before reaching democracy.” We need to step by step in this gradual transformation from barbaric civilization into contract civilization. The West thinks it can bring civilization to the Middle East people, but the result is to sink themselves in because something that suits West very well doesn't suit Middle East. I happened to coincide with Montesquieu on this point. 

Environmental determinism

Environmental determinism, also known as climatic determinism or geographical determinism, relies on an approach which implies that individuals are bound to their environmental settings, especially climate. These forms of physical geographies determine human behaviour, the existence of different forms of societies etc. This is defined by a stimulus-response reaction. Let's review our “Father of Sociology” Montesquieu's idea in his book of Spirit of Laws:

It is the variety of wants in different climates that first occasioned a difference in the manner of living, and this gave rise to a variety of laws. Where people are very communicative there must be particular laws, and others where there is but little communication…. In warm countries the aqueous part of the blood loses itself greatly by perspiration;15 it must therefore be supplied by a like liquid. Water is there of admirable use; strong liquors would congeal the globules16 of blood that remain after the transuding of the aqueous humour…. In cold countries the aqueous part of the blood is very little evacuated by perspiration. They may therefore make use of spirituous liquors, without which the blood would congeal. They are full of humours; consequently strong liquors, which give a motion to the blood, are proper for those countries…. The law of Mahomet, which prohibits the drinking of wine, is therefore fitted to the climate of Arabia: and indeed, before Mahomet's time, water was the common drink of the Arabs. The law17 which forbade the Carthaginians to drink wine was a law of the climate; and, indeed, the climate of those two countries is pretty nearly the same…. Such a law would be improper for cold countries, where the climate seems to force them to a kind of national intemperance, very different from personal ebriety. Drunkenness predominates throughout the world, in proportion to the coldness and humidity of the climate. Go from the equator to the north pole, and you will find this vice increasing together with the degree of latitude. Go from the equator again to the south pole, and you will find the same vice travelling south,18 exactly in the same proportion. 

In Asia they have always had great empires; in Europe these could never subsist. Asia has larger plains; it is cut out into much more extensive divisions by mountains and seas; and as it lies more to the south, its springs are more easily dried up; the mountains are less covered with snow; and the rivers, being not so large, form more contracted barriers…. Power in Asia ought, then, to be always despotic; for if their slavery was not severe they would soon make a division inconsistent with the nature of the country…. In Europe the natural division forms many nations of a moderate extent, in which the ruling by laws is not incompatible with the maintenance of the state: on the contrary, it is so favourable to it, that without this the state would fall into decay, and become a prey to its neighbours…. It is this which has formed a genius for liberty that renders every part extremely difficult to be subdued and subjected to a foreign power, otherwise than by the laws and the advantage of commerce…. On the contrary, there reigns in Asia a servile spirit, which they have never been able to shake off, and it is impossible to find in all the histories of that country a single passage which discovers a freedom of spirit; we shall never see anything there but the excess of slavery. 

These fertile provinces are always of a level surface, where the inhabitants are unable to dispute against a stronger power; they are then obliged to submit; and when they have once submitted, the spirit of liberty cannot return…. The barrenness of the earth renders men industrious, sober, inured to hardship, courageous, and fit for war; they are obliged to procure by labour what the earth refuses to bestow spontaneously. The fertility of a country gives ease, effeminacy, and a certain fondness for the preservation of life…. We have already observed that great heat enervates the strength and courage of men, and that in cold climates they have a certain vigour of body and mind, which renders them patient and intrepid, and qualifies them for arduous enterprises. This remark holds good, not only between different nations, but even in the different parts of the same country. In the north of China people are more courageous than those in the south; and those in the south of Korea have less bravery than those in the north…. What we have now said is perfectly conformable to history. Asia has been subdued thirteen times; eleven by the northern nations, and twice by those of the south. 

I basically agree with the above two views. Spencer believed that each nation has different understanding of happiness. To be honest, Natural selection theory given by Darwin be similar to Environmental determinism theory given by Montesquieu in my opinion. Here I give you my line of reasoning about Environmental determinism from the point of view of Game theory. In the course of the evolution of the species, two factors are both important: One is genes and the other is environment. Without belaboring the importance of genes, it is because we can regard all genes we have as an initial endowment given by God in any Game. In essence, genes represent what we have, and environment represents which would be selected. A classic example: Sex-determination. In cold-blooded animals, the gender is determined by environment temperature such as crocodilians and sphenodontians, while in warm-blooded animals, the gender is determined by sex genes such as mammals and birds. You can further discover a phenomenon that different temperature has different preference, such as 42 Centigrade in birds (with WZ/ZZ) prefers ovarian gene as dominant gene and conversely 37 Centigrade in mammals (with XX/XY) prefers testicular gene as dominant gene. Since we are diploid organisms, we contain different two alleles, so environment played a decisive role in natural selection. In short, we must admit that different environment has a different preference. Here there is another my experience to prove that environment indeed has preference, and any biological strategy should adapt to the environmental requirements and achieve an organism with the environment. You could find that the color of human skin will gradually fade with the increase of the latitudes (except for the immigrants in the past hundred years). I am a typical yellow, and I will be black if I stay in Thailand for 20 days, but I will be whiter for a little bit if I stay in UK for 20 days. Do you know cuttlefish in the ocean which are able to rapidly change the color and patterns of their skin based on their environment? Similarly, there are many coconut trees in Thailand which can't live in cold region where there are many erect pines. 

Independent civilization evolution

I draw a following tree (Figure 6.3) to express the independent civilization evolution by different environment. At the beginning, we get started from the most primitive beings called Homo sapiens in the left side. At this point, human beings are not differentiated as same as undifferentiated stem cells with self-renewal and differentiation capacity into a variety of functional characteristics of cells. Later, for some reason, primitive humans began to migrate to Asia and Europe from Africa. Have you ever thought about a problem why some people choose to migrate while others choose to stay in Africa? Is it because of the environment in Africa? I don't think so because if so all human beings should leave Africa. I am not certain but I guess the reason is struggle for existence. A struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high rate at which all organic beings tend to increase. At the beginning, there are not many human beings in Africa under the condition of that women gave the birth to one child at a time and never stopped producing but suffered the very low survival rate. This point is not hard to understand because the birth survival rate remains low in Africa now if without modern medical treatment. At that time, wild food in nature is enough for a few people. In other words, the survival threshold is very low at the beginning, you would get enough food as long as you don't die in childbirth. As the population grows, wild foods in nature become less and less, and when population growth exceeds natural capacity but without any technological revolution, two human beings in a time of death, may be truly said to struggle with each other which shall get food and live. Now, as the population increases but with the constant resources, threshold of survival becomes higher and higher, so people must fight for scarce resources. It is similar to why American highway would be free of charge but Chinese highway need to be charged. If China's expressways are also free, it will be hard to move. By the way, China must develop public transport since China's population density does not support one person with one vehicle. In China, now, more than 90% of troubles are caused by its huge population. There is always a way to solve scarce resources. In barbarism civilization people resorted to force, and in so-called advanced civilization people resorted to money or power. There is no essential difference between the two, and the only goal is to build a proper high threshold, but by different game rule, to kick some unqualified people out of the game. As long as there are scarce resources, there will be winners and losers. You must admit that the struggle almost invariably will be most severe between the individuals of the same species, for they frequent the same districts, require the same food, and are exposed to the same dangers. In the competition, what kind of people will choose to migrate? Winners or losers? Definitely losers because the winners have no need to leave but the losers have to face the tradeoff between staying with dying and migrating with little opportunity to survive. If I were primitive, I would choose to go because little opportunity is better than death. At first, human struggle was very cruel, and I bet there was no love at all. I find that in agricultural civilization people are more likely to kill each other. I think it is because agricultural civilization is self-sufficient civilization, but the arable land is limited, so people have to compete for limited resources. The relationship between people is competitive. In other words, the benefits of your survival are much less than your death, because you are useless to me in the age of self-sufficiency, so my best strategy is to kill you if it is possible. The selfish-herd model in itself has no place for cooperative interactions. There is no altruism here, only selfish exploitation by each individual of every other individual. Only when mutual benefit can stop the war. In short, trade is the only reason why human beings stop killing each other because of comparative advantage. When you are useful to me, I choose to use you, not kill you. A relationship of mutual benefit between members of different species is called mutualism or symbiosis. You may ask me why we see only a limited number of widely divergent civilizations instead of continuous gradient unlimited number of similar civilizations? I guess it is because Continental drift, otherwise Genghis Khan would really rule the whole continent. I agree with the theory of Continental drift because it was impossible for mankind to cross any channel at the time of human technology, so the result must have been that the original man arrived there first, and then the continents were separated. The sea became first natural barrier that divided them into independent evolution. Of course, the second natural barrier set by God is language in human nature. It's very important to realize that the existing civilization is developed alone. 

Next, I am going to discuss how the different civilizations developed separately. In Figure 6.3, red boxes represent people in Africa environment, and green boxes represent people in Middle East environment, and magenta boxes represent people in East Asia environment, and blue boxes represent people in Europe environment. Some people, as winners, had the right to stay in Africa, because the environment has not changed from beginning to end, so they still maintain the original style. For example, let's assume that there are four different interest groups: Strong men, strong women, emaciated men, and emaciated women. Under the African unchanged environment, they would achieve some kind of equilibrium with different strategies: Strong men with strategy of A, strong women with strategy of B, emaciated men with strategy of C, emaciated women with strategy of D. These four strategies form a stable state, of course including rape and death. No change in the environment, the interests of the pattern has not changed, so people's thought has not changed yet. This is an indisputable fact that many years later we can see Africa is still in primitive civilization where they all still rely on picking wild fruit to make a living. Some people, as losers, had to leave Africa to find a way to make a living. They came to the middle east area. Changes in the environment have broken the original pattern of interests. For example, if they come to the beach, they can live by fishing and some new technologies must be invented in fishing, and then genes that are good at fishing immediately become environment's preference and are preserved and passed on; if they come to the grassland, they can live by feeding livestock and some new technologies must be invented in feeding, and then genes that are good at feeding immediately become environment's preference and are preserved and passed on. In short, the change in the environment equivalent to the change in the rules of the survival game, created new winners and new losers. Under the new environment of Middle East, the four different interest groups achieved a new equilibrium with new different strategies set: (), including sex segregation and religion. Apparently, men, in Middle East, chose sex segregation to deal with rape. Similarly, East Asia environment has its own preferences, and the four different interest groups achieved a new equilibrium with new different strategies set: ( ), also including sex segregation and religion. With the outbreak of the proletarian revolution and the rise of feminism, women began to work outside. At this point, the pattern of interests has been broken, but people's thought hasn't changed yet, so four different interest groups achieved a new pseudo-equilibrium with new different strategies set: ( ), including lies and love. Following the same logic, environment of Europe has its own preferences, and the four different interest groups achieved a new equilibrium with new different strategies set: (), also including sex segregation and religion. One day, the outbreak of the two World War forced women to step out of their homes and into factories. From then on, women began to work and support themselves, and the original pattern of interests has been broken, but women's thought hasn't changed yet, so the western society reached a new pseudo-equilibrium with new different strategies set: ( ). You can find three very interesting phenomena. One is that religion exists in all civilizations except Africa civilization, and why? It is because Africa civilization is Barbaric civilization belonged to Ground state with absolute stable state which doesn't need any lies to sustain it. The second is that all civilizations adopted the strategy of sex segregation in its long history, and why? I think it is because sex segregation is indeed the best way to protect women against sexual assault. The last is that love is most popular in Western and East Asia civilization, and why? I think it is because only the existence of love can drag a woman in to P-V model, and there is no need of love between two sexes in Middle East and Violent civilization. I admit that geographical position really can't play a decisive role, but it plays a role of endowment, and the follow-up result is the consequence of coevolution.  

Man is the creature of circumstances. Every civilization that evolves independently is in its own equilibrium. This is a problem of balance, like scuba diving. If you can't keep the balance between the inside and outside of the ear, you will squeeze your eardrum and feel hurt; if you keep the balance very well, you don't feel any pain theoretically regardless of the depth. I agree that all human beings come from the same ancestor-Homo sapiens, but as the environment is different, humans have already evolved into different subspecies in different organic ecology with different strategies. It's like we are all dinosaurs, but some are swift dragons, some Tyrannosaurus Rex, some pterosaurs, and so on. Each subspecies adopts a completely different strategy in survival and reproduction. After all, you have to admit that the civilization that exists has not disappeared, and what is rational is actual and what is actual is rational. You can't conclude that Western civilization is better than other civilization, and the only thing I can conclude is that Western civilization is closer to contract civilization. The any western policies are aimed at keeping its own balance. For example, the west is also using various means to suppress single people, by giving couples a rental housing subsidy. The essence is the same, forcing women into the P-V model, to maintain social stability. Women are destined to be comfort women in any existing civilization, and the only difference is voluntary or involuntary, which can't change the cruel facts. The stupidest thing is to break ongoing balance before you don't have the ability to achieve the next one. The main reason why the world is so chaotic now is the conflict of interests caused by the integration and collision of civilizations in different equilibrium states after the isolation threshold has almost turned to zero. Compare with so-called bullshit “Human rights”, we should pay more attention to the problem of balance because the so-called equal rights movement from the West has destroyed the balance of local nature. 

In defense of the Middle East civilization

Here I want to defense Middle East civilization for a little bit. Almost all Westerners believe women in the Middle East are inferior, because the Koran has some restrictions on Muslim women's dress and act. For example, in Islam women are not allowed to show their bodies (other than face and hands) to men (other than their fathers, uncles, brothers, sons, nephews,) and they are not allowed to marry a non-Muslim (no exceptions), so Muslim women must wear a headscarf to cover their head and hair called hijab, while others wear a burka or niqab, which also covers up their face. I have been to Malaysia for scuba diving where I found the girls just wear hijab unlike the women in the Middle East who must were burka or niqab. To be honest, hijab is acceptable for me, but burka or niqab is kind of scary, because I can't figure out whether you are friendly or unfriendly. The Muslim woman is not only supposed to cover herself, except with relatives, but to look down, so as to avoid making eye-contact with men. The Koran has placed restrictions on men meeting strange women privately. Cannot shake hands of a non-Muslim man unless he is family. Similarly, no man other than her husband is allowed to touch any part of a woman's body. A wife must neither receive male strangers nor accept gifts from them without her husband's approval. Additionally, it is not lawful for a woman believing in Allah and the Hereafter to undertake a journey extending over three days or more, except when she is in the company of her father, or her son, or her husband, or her brother, or any other Mahram. No sex and kissing before marriage (applies to Muslim men too). The west still has the prejudice towards the Middle Eastern civilization because they think Muslim women have no human rights. Here let me in defense of Middle Eastern civilization for a little bit. 

We have seen rape everywhere today in Africa from the book of Half the Sky. Goma, the principal city of North Kivu province in the people of the Democratic Republic of Congo, has been called the rape capital of the world. At the height of the conflict, in 2006-7, 48 women were being raped every hour. How can we prevent women from being raped when the external conditions remain unchanged? Sex segregation, I think, was an only choice under violent civilization. Many superficial scholars believe that sex segregation represents the society has stratified and hierarchical system and discrimination against women. This is the root of our wrong cognition. In the boxing match, separating boxers into divisions helps ensure fair fights. Men are born unequal. You never count on me to win Tyson in a boxing. As a weak man, you must acknowledge your weak position, and then adopt your best counter-strategies. As a rational father, how would you protect your daughter from rape when all the rapists are around? Keep her staying at home. In fact, the Quran adopted sex segregation as the passive and conservative counter-strategy to protect women instead of persecuting the feminine. This counter-strategy had been adopted in many countries in human history. In ancient China, women were also forbidden to go out, and in order to keep women from going out foot binding appeared. Additionally, unmarried women can't be seen by strangers. The main purpose of all these rules is to limit the mobility of women and confine women to their husbands' homes. The nature of it is also sex-segregation. One of the Chinese classic authors consider the man as a prodigy of virtue who, finding a woman alone in a distant apartment, can forbear making use of force. As everyone knows, the desire to have sexual release would be aroused by female face and body, so women should go as far as to cover their faces because even the face may attract sexual glances from men. By keeping a safe distance between two sexes, the real purpose behind those restrictions is to safeguard women against evil inclinations. The Quran says the rules on dress are slightly relaxed when a woman reaches old age and her sexual attractions have faded. I don't know the history of Western women's humiliation, but I guess there must be a phenomenon like sex segregation in West history, because as a conservative strategy, segregation is always an evolutionarily stable strategy forever. In fact, many countries now set up the coach for ladies only on the subway to prevent sexual harassment, whose essence is sex segregation. So far, we can conclude that this conservative strategy is not outdated, but there are still many men who behaves unruly sitting in that coach in KL. 

The Koran is not oppression of women, but protection. In Africa, the men still in savage civilization are like male animals, and apparently rape is best strategy for male, so single women are easy to rape outside. To deal with rape problem, the Middle East civilization has evolved the counter-strategy: wearing a burka or niqab and keep women at homes. We must admit that Middle East civilization is in higher level (Stable state) above African civilization (Ground state) because women are sexually raped by a man in marriage is much better off than by group of men on the street. In stable state, sexual relations are the relations of prostitution, while husband provides food and protection for his wife in exchange for sexual-services, and conversely，wife provides sex-services for her husband in exchange for necessaries and protection, and both of them has surplus. Let's move on East Asian civilization. Apparently, rape is not the mainstream in Asian civilization, because I wouldn't worry about being raped when I was walking on the street in China now special in the daylight instead of night. Women can go out for working alone, but they are still lack of rationality. Here my question is which level East Asian civilization located now? You might think that East Asian Civilization is in higher level (Stable state) above Middle East civilization. You guess the only half right. East Asian Civilization is indeed located in higher level over Middle East civilization, but in virtual state. In virtual state, Pseudo-equilibrium depends on the imaginary to sustain, such as religions, love, morality and all kinds of lies, where men are in a win-win situation and women in a lose-lose situation. Looking at the history of the United States, you will find that the United States is the mother of cult. Peoples Temple is the famous one, created by Jim Jones, whose doctrine is everything is free. In my opinion, any religion who claims everything is free is cult, but this doctrine really caters to the ignorant, greedy and credulous masses. The biggest cult in the world is Love because love reduces women to free prostitutes.  

Here I'm going to talk about a movie called India's Daughter. It is generally known that Delhi has become the rape capital of the world. Western female tourists are often reported to have been raped in India. To be honest, India is not the most dangerous place for women if you count Africa in. Rape is normal in a violent civilization where females don't resist it because they know they can't beat the male. Why is rape condemned in contract civilization? Because it violates the voluntary principle of contract civilization. The confusion of gender relations in India lies in the mismatch of behavioral strategies among different civilizations. On one hand, in traditional Indian culture, the differences between a girl and a boy are created in people's mind from birth, and girls should not go out in the evening because women are always victims of violent civilization. On the other hand, western civilization advocates contract civilization which is based on voluntary transactions between the two sides and where physical differences have been completely ignored. It is doomed to failure that you attempt to restrain some gays who are the beneficiaries of violent civilization with the rules of contractual civilization. The biggest lie of Western civilization is gender equality which is very useful for maintaining pseudo equilibrium state in the West but is not suitable for Indian civilization because India's gender civilization is in balance and there is no need and place for any lies. Under the lie of egalitarianism, Indian girls forget that they are still victims of violent civilization; under the lie of Love, they forget they are still the sellers of sexual services. This is two mistakes women always make. Defense lawyer for the rapists said, “A female is just like a flower. It gives a good-looking, very softness performance, pleasant. But one the other hand, a man is just a thorn, strong, tough enough. That flower always needs protection. If you put that flower in a gutter, it is spoilt. If you put that flower in a temple, it will be worshipped. They left our Indian culture. They were under the imagination of the film culture in which they can do anything. She should not be put on the streets just like food. The “lady”, on the other hand, you can say the “girl” or “woman” are more precious than a gem, than a diamond. It is up to you how you want to keep that diamond in your hand. If you put your diamond on the street, certainly the dog will take it out. You can't stop it. You are talking about man and woman as friends? Sorry, that doesn't have any place in our society. A woman means I immediately put the sex in his eyes. We have the best culture. In our culture, there is no place for a woman.” I do not want to defend violent civilization, but this lawyer's words indeed fully corroborate my two points. So far, all men, whether from the East or the West, consider P-V model legitimate. The only difference is that one resorts to violence and the other to lies. Relationships between men and women, whether based on violent civilization or on lies, has not escaped P-V model. There is no essential difference between the two. One of rapists said, “When being raped, she should not fight back. She should just be silent and allow the rape. Then they would have dropped her off after doing her, and only hit the boy.” This is because he has a strong sense of imbalance when the victim resists. You can be fucked for free by other men, why can't you be fuck for free by me? Men know exactly what sexual intercourse means, but women don't; men know exactly why men need women, but women don't. At the end of the film, a lawyer said, “If my daughter or sister engaged in pre-marital activities, and disgraced herself and allowed herself to lose face and character by doing such things. I would most certainly take this sort of sister or daughter to my farmhouse, and in front of my entire family, I would put petrol on her and set her alight.” I guess those guys who shouted for “Long live woman's freedom! Your freedom! My freedom!” in the parade must be the beneficiaries of women's abuse of freedom. When women are free, they will volunteer to take off the pants for free in pursuit of love and vagina orgasm. Their purpose has been achieved without rape or payment. Freedom is a such good thing. I wonder whether they will still shout for women's freedom when women's freedom is to refuse to take off their pants. I think the answer is obvious. The more I know men, the more I sympathize with women. There is no better way because evolution needs victims. Women are destined to be victims of evolution, both from the perspective of individual strength and from the perspective of genetic interests, because vagina is what men need and uterus is what genes need. So far, there is no equality between men and women, because men do not allow equality between men and women. How to make men compromise? Pseudo-equilibrium state is unavoidable. First of all, women should believe in love before they can be free, and then men allow women to read and work. On the one hand, they still provide free sex services, on the other hand, they can earn money to support their families. Only in this way can men agree to liberate women because they become arbitragers. If women do not believe in love, the relationship between men and women will not enter a pseudo-equilibrium. Women refuse to enter marriage immediately after they study and work. It means men cannot arbitrage from it. After weighing the pros and cons, men won't allow women to read and work. What is the difference between human beings and animals? The difference is not whether to wear clothes or not, but the former resorts to trade, the latter resorts to violence. Women are eunuchs in a pseudo-equilibrium state. Next, what should the Indian government do? Sterilization of the poor is what India needs to do. Poverty is the root of all evil. Like genes, poverty can be inherited. Individuals can have human rights to survive, but you must give up your reproductive rights if they want to a relief. Let this virus gene not be inherited. To be honest, I don't know what justice is and I don't think anyone in the world can understand it, but I know what equilibrium is and most people ignore it. 

so far, you can understand why I stand for the Middle East civilization that is just a passive counter-strategy of violent civilization, aimed at protecting women instead of hurting women. An ignorant woman, as a prey, does not know she is in a pack of wolves. When you can't change your surroundings, you should not expose your body to arouse wolf's his desire. Here is an example for you. There is a beautiful diving island in eastern Thailand, called Ko Tao, where I got my scuba diving license in 2015, but Koh Tao is not perfect and some travelers believe that the island are full of sinister gangsters, riled up murderers and ominous threats. And yes, there was a devastating, high profile, double murder on the island in September of 2014. Following the shocking news that Hannah Witheridge, 23, and David Miller, 24, were murdered on the idyllic southern island of Koh Tao on Monday, Thailand's Prime Minister has spoken out about the incident, causing outrage. Questioning the safety of Westerners in bikinis, he said, "There are always problems with tourist safety. They think our country is beautiful and safe so they can do whatever they want, they can wear bikinis and walk everywhere. But can they be safe in bikinis…unless they are not beautiful?" Sudin Dhavalikar, the minister for the public works department in the Indian state of Goa, made similar controversial statements – calling for a ban on bikinis after linking them to sexual crimes on beaches. "We should not allow girls with bikinis to enter public places because it is very difficult to control people who arrive in Goa from different states," he said. " Needless to say, these comments triggered critics and anger from the victims' families and the crowd because these comments implied that women are effectively asking for trouble by wearing bikinis placing blame on the victims of horrific crimes. These bureaucrats are right, but truth is always hard to accept. Different civilizations need different counter-strategies to maximize your payoffs and minimize your costs. You cannot but accept local equilibrium price, which is market power, or you are toast. 

Under the guise of LOVE, men can enjoy sex-services without pay, and women became free prostitutes, but with the return of women's rationality, civilization has only one option: professionalization. Some women with lower opportunity cost become professional prostitutes, while some women with higher opportunity cost become unqualified suppliers who choose to exit the sex-service market actively. Social evolution is very slow and requires progress in both material and spiritual progress. Western civilization, as the leader of human civilization, has to pay the high price for some unknown errors when exploration, which could be called the price of trial and error. Boss is not easy to be. The greatest harm is the West tries to impose this higher pseudo-equilibrium on the lower true equilibrium, and chaos resulted. Evolution is always second-mover advantage instead of first-mover advantage, because the second-mover can draw lessons from first-mover and avoid unnecessary costs. In my opinion, the best thing about the western system is that women, as losers, have the opportunity to choose freely, but they have two consequences of this freedom: better off or worse off. The Savior must have been born at this time to lead the human race to the next stable state. At any time, mankind needs the savior to save. 

Human rights

In the past, civilizations evolved relatively independently, so they each reached their equilibrium, and there is no such problem called “Human rights”, and people observed their customs in their respective worlds, but in recent years, various civilizations began to intertwine with each other, and so-called the problem of “Human rights” emerged. In my opinion, the problem of “human rights” is a totally false proposition because it must originate from comparison. Here I want to introduce a concept: Easterlin paradox which is a key concept in happiness economics and theorized by Professor Richard Easterlin who is an Economics Professor at the University of Southern California. Some Empirical Evidence”, he concluded that a country's level of economic development (i.e., the increase in the standard of living) and level of happiness are not connected. I basically agree with his argument and I am not going to waste your time to repeat his point here. In my opinion, happiness is a kind of subjective feelings whose characteristic is depending on the comparison with his/her expectations but lack of objective criteria to measure. There are a thousand Hamlets in a thousand people's eyes. Think about your smartphone. I bought my favorite smartphone two years ago and I was satisfied with it at that time. Now it's still the same and functioning well but I am not happy with it. Why? It is because it really sucks compared with my colleague's iPhone Xs Max. Bhutan was once the happiest country in the world until satellite TV was introduced into this country. Since then, people's level of happiness has dived sharply. Television's dazzling high-end lifestyle, clothing and jewelry not only led to deep resentment, but also led to a wave of crime. In order to pursue the so-called Western life, many people began to steal and rob. Comparisons are very harmful. Segregation and lies are necessary, because it is easier to satisfy occasionally a fool. Stuart Muller said that it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, but unfortunately, the pig does not think so. What is happiness? Are people happier now than one hundred years? It is hard to say. I think happiness is a relative value depending on the gap between your actual situation and expectations. You have to lower your expectation when you don't have enough ability to change your situation. Frankly speaking, if China didn't open the door, the Chinese people may feel happy as same as North Korean. The United States believed that overthrowing dictators can bring people happiness, but the fact is that people there don't feel happy because they believed they can be happier in Europe. God's strategy is to castrate people's desires before they have the ability to achieve the next Equilibrium. I stress it again that segregation is always a conservative stable strategy, please think about the IOS ecosystem of Apple phone. On the question of happiness, I happened to coincide with Herbert Spencer, and let's review what Herbert Spencer said in Social Statics: 

Assuming it to be in other respects satisfactory, a rule, principle, or axiom, is valuable only in so far as the words in which it is expressed have a definite meaning. The terms used must be universally accepted in the same sense, otherwise the proposition will be liable to such various constructions, as to lose all claim to the title—a rule. We must therefore take it for granted that when he announced “the greatest happiness to the greatest number” as the canon of social morality, its originator supposed mankind to be unanimous in their definition of “greatest happiness.”…was a most unfortunate assumption, for no fact is more palpable than that the standard of happiness is infinitely variable. In all ages—amongst every people—by each class—do we find different notions of it entertained. To the wandering gipsy a home is tiresome; whilst a Swiss is miserable without one. Progress is necessary to the well-being of the Anglo-Saxons; on the other hand the Esquimaux are content in their squalid poverty, have no latent wants, and are still what they were in the days of Tacitus. An Irishman delights in a row; a Chinese in pageantry and ceremonies; and the usually apathetic Javan gets vociferously enthusiastic over a cock-fight. The heaven of the Hebrew is “a city of gold and precious stones, with a supernatural abundance of corn and wine;” that of the Turk—a harem peopled by houris; that of the American Indian—a “happy hunting ground;” in the Norse paradise there were to be daily battles with magical healing of wounds; whilst the Australian hopes that after death he shall “jump up a white fellow, and have plenty of sixpences.” Descending to individual instances, we find Louis XVI. interpreting “greatest happiness” to mean—making locks; instead of which his successor read—making empires. It was seemingly the opinion of Lycurgus that perfect physical development was the chief essential to human felicity; Plotinus, on the contrary, was so purely ideal in his aspirations as to be ashamed of his body. Indeed the many contradictory answers given by Grecian thinkers to the question—What constitutes happiness? have given occasion to comparisons that have now become trite. Nor has greater unanimity been shown amongst ourselves. To a miserly Elwes the hoarding of money was the only enjoyment of life; but Day, the philanthropic author of “Sandford and Merton,” could find no pleasurable employment save in its distribution. Rural quietude, books, and a friend, are the wants of the poet; a tuft-hunter longs rather for a large circle of titled acquaintance, a box at the Opera, and the freedom of Almack's. The ambitions of the tradesman and the artist are anything but alike; and could we compare the air castles of the ploughman and the philosopher, we should find them of widely-different orders of architecture…. Generalizing such facts, we see that the standard of “greatest happiness” possesses as little fixity as the other exponents of human nature. Between nations the differences of opinion are conspicuous enough. On contrasting the Hebrew patriarchs with their existing descendants, we observe that even in the same race the beau ideal of existence changes. The members of each community disagree upon the question. Neither, if we compare the wishes of the gluttonous school-boy with those of the earth-scorning transcendentalist into whom he may afterwards grow, do we find any constancy in the individual. So we may say, not only that every epoch and every people has its peculiar conceptions of happiness, but that no two men have like conceptions; and further, that in each man the conception is not the same at any two periods of life. The rationale of this is simple enough. Happiness signifies a gratified state of all the faculties. The gratification of a faculty is produced by its exercise. To be agreeable that exercise must be proportionate to the power of the faculty; if it is insufficient discontent arises, and its excess produces weariness. Hence, to have complete felicity is to have all the faculties exerted in the ratio of their several developments; and an ideal arrangement of circumstances calculated to secure this constitutes the standard of “greatest happiness;” but the minds of no two individuals contain the same combination of elements. Duplicate men are not to be found. There is in each a different balance of desires. Therefore the conditions adapted for the highest enjoyment of one, would not perfectly compass the same end for any other. And consequently the notion of happiness must vary with the disposition and character; that is, must vary indefinitely…. Similar unsettled questions might be indefinitely multiplied. Not only therefore is an agreement as to the meaning of “greatest happiness” theoretically impossible, but it is also manifest, that men are at issue upon all topics, which for their determination require defined notions of it. So that in directing us to this “greatest happiness to the greatest number,” as the object towards which we should steer, our pilot “keeps the word of promise to our ear and breaks it to our hope.” What he shows us through his telescope is a fata morgana, and not the promised land. The real haven of our hopes dips far down below the horizon and has yet been seen by none. It is beyond the ken of seer be he never so farsighted. Faith not sight must be our guide. We cannot do without a compass. 

Similarly, this logic can be applied to the issue of human rights. Different nationalities at the same time, or even the same nation at different times have different perception of human rights. During the period of cultural isolation, there is no comparison and people in lower civilizations don't feel too bad because everyone around them lives like this. Similarly, poverty is also a relative concept. It depends on who you compare with. Compared with Buffett, I am a real poor woman, but compared with many Chinese people, I am still rich enough. As the scandalous Mandeville put it in 1723, “which it would be prudence to relieve, but folly to cure.” He was right. It is wise of you to relieve the problem of the poor, but it is foolish of you to eradicate the problem of the poor. When Herbert Hoover ever said with earnest simplicity, “We shall soon with the help of God be within sight of the day when poverty will be banished from the nation,” he might have been shortsighted—as who was not?—but he rested his case on the incontrovertible fact that the average American family lived better, ate better, dressed better, and enjoyed more of the amenities of life than any average family thitherto in the history of the world. The vision of Every Man being a Wealthy Man had been shown up as a hallucination. The issue of human rights originates from the comparison of norms of conduct among different civilizations. Mismatched decency and dignity will inevitably lead to lagging economic development. A group of low-energy electrons which are located in the 1S orbit envy the high-energy electrons which are located in the 4P orbit every day, "how free they are, there is no human rights in 1S orbit." At present, the main trouble of human beings is that those low-energy electrons in 1S orbit want to go to the 4P orbit because there are human rights there. Let me give you my reasoning about that. With the promoting of world integration, people are becoming more and more aware of other civilizations, they suddenly found out that they can gain even greater benefits if they are located in some other civilization. What would they do? Two choices: One is to choose immigrant; the other is to ask the local government for their so-called rights in their own country. In essence, what are they doing? Arbitrage in different civilizations. There are only two results: One is to break the balance of another civilization; the other is to break the balance of local civilization. Let's take China's birth control as an example. During my trip to the West, almost all Westerners are criticizing the policy of birth control in China as a violation of human rights, but I don't think so. In my eyes, there is no good or bad policy, but only valid or invalid policy. Westerners are overconfident on many issues. In Deng Xiaoping's words, “You're not all wrong, we're not all right.” 

Population model

About reproductive balance, let's review what Darwin said in his book of Origin of species:

There is no exception to the rule that every organic being naturally increases at so high a rate, that if not destroyed, the earth would soon be covered by the progeny of a single pair. Even slow-breeding man has doubled in twenty-five years, and at this rate, in a few thousand years, there would literally not be standing room for his progeny…. A struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high rate at which all organic beings tend to increase. Every being, which during its natural lifetime produces several eggs or seeds, must suffer destruction during some period of its life, and during some season or occasional year, otherwise, on the principle of geometrical increase, its numbers would quickly become so inordinately great that no country could support the product…. The elephant is reckoned to be the slowest breeder of all known animals, and I have taken some pains to estimate its probable minimum rate of natural increase: it will be under the mark to assume that it breeds when thirty years old, and goes on breeding till ninety years old, bringing forth three pairs of young in this interval; if this be so, at the end of the fifth century there would be alive fifteen million elephants, descended from the first pair…. In a state of nature almost every plant produces seed, and amongst animals there are very few which do not annually pair. Hence we may confidently assert, that all plants and animals are tending to increase at a geometrical ratio, that all would most rapidly stock every station in which they could any how exist, and that the geometrical tendency to increase must be checked by destruction at some period of life. Our familiarity with the larger domestic animals tends, I think, to mislead us: we see no great destruction falling on them, and we forget that thousands are annually slaughtered for food, and that in a state of nature an equal number would have somehow to be disposed of…. In looking at Nature, it is most necessary to keep the foregoing considerations always in mind – never to forget that every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers; that each lives by a struggle at some period of its life; that heavy destruction inevitably falls either on the young or old, during each generation or at recurrent intervals. Lighten any check, mitigate the destruction ever so little, and the number of the species will almost instantaneously increase to any amount. The face of Nature may be compared to a yielding surface, with ten thousand sharp wedges packed close together and driven inwards by incessant blows, sometimes one wedge being struck, and then another with greater force…. What checks the natural tendency of each species to increase in number is most obscure…. In some cases it can be shown that widely-different checks act on the same species in different districts. When we look at the plants and bushes clothing an entangled bank, we are tempted to attribute their proportional numbers and kinds to what we call chance. But how false a view is this!... Climate plays an important part in determining the average numbers of a species, and periodical seasons of extreme cold or drought, I believe to be the most effective of all checks. I estimated that the winter of 1854-55 destroyed four-fifths of the birds in my own grounds; and this is a tremendous destruction, when we remember that ten per cent. is an extraordinarily severe mortality from epidemics with man. The action of climate seems at first sight to be quite independent of the struggle for existence; but in so far as climate chiefly acts in reducing food, it brings on the most severe struggle between the individuals, whether of the same or of distinct species, which subsist on the same kind of food. Even when climate, for instance extreme cold, acts directly, it will be the least vigorous, or those which have got least food through the advancing winter, which will suffer most. When we travel from south to north, or from a damp region to a dry, we invariably see some species gradually getting rarer and rarer, and finally disappearing; and the change of climate being conspicuous, we are tempted to attribute the whole effect to its direct action.

African states have found success elusive both in slowing population and in raising production. Although babies are born at a slower rate than in the 1950s, the overall population growth rate is higher because life expectancy has risen dramatically. The ghost of Malthus seems to frown upon countries such as Ethiopia, where drought and war act as positive checks. According to American media reports, Africa's population will more than double to 2.4 billion by 2050. Sub-Saharan Africa's population is rising faster than the rest of the world because modern medicine and health care on the continent means more babies are surviving birth complications, and fewer adults are dying from preventable diseases. But the number of children being born is not dropping, or is doing so very slowly. African mothers have an average of 5.2 children, rising to 7.6 in Niger, the country with the world's highest fertility rate that is close to five times the European average of 1.6 children born to each woman. According to foreign media reports that a 37-year-old Ugandan woman has given birth to 38 children including twins, triplets, quadruplets. One biologist has calculated that a pair of animals, each pair producing ten pairs annually, would at the end of twenty years be responsible for 700,000,000,000,000,000,000 offspring; and Havelock Ellis mentions a minute organism that, if unimpeded in its division, would produce from one single tiny being a mass a million times larger than the sun—in thirty days. On one hand, we have to admit that the function of reproduction is exponential. Any reproduction conforms to the geometric ratios, including human reproduction. On the other hand, God is pretty cruel to any exponential function because it would cause imbalances, so they must suffer destruction by different ways. God must strike a balance by somewhat kinds of means. By raising the death rate. What are the positive forces that can “save” us from geometric ratios? War, famine, and plagues. The black death lurks in every alley ready to rescue us. Infant mortality liberates us from overpopulation. And famine haunts us always: Famine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of nature. In Smith's day infant mortality among the lower classes was shockingly high. “It is not uncommon,” says Smith, “... in the Highlands of Scotland for a mother who has borne twenty children not to have two alive.” In many places in England, half the children died before they were four, and almost everywhere half the children lived only to the age of nine or ten. Malnutrition, evil living conditions, cold, and disease took a horrendous toll among the poorer element. Do you know under what circumstances the Chinese government was forced to introduce the policy of One Child? My classmate's mother who was born in 1950s had nine brothers and sisters. This was not a rare phenomenon at that time. I am saying that again the government was forced to do the brakes. Why is there a sudden increase in population? According to my match theory, modern medicine and the desire to reproduce like an animal don't match each other. You would see that tigers never take birth control, but the number of tigers in the world is far smaller than that of human beings. Why? It is because their babies die every day while they give birth every day. A TV program called the animal world in China, told me that crocodile mothers will lose 90% of their children in the first week. The main problem in the Africa is the mismatch between African social pattern and modern medicine. So far, Africa is still in self-sufficient period and all people grab subsistence materials from nature, so they are still in zero-sum game. They can't make the pie bigger, so they have to fight each other for given subsistence materials. The more people, the fiercer they fight. The fundamental reason for the war is that the benefits of war are greater than costs, or in other words, their opportunity cost is very low. I can't imagine what if they have modern weapons. I suggest let Africa be in its own equilibrium (Self-sufficiency + high mortality + high birth rate + wooden weapons) which also the equilibrium for animals. Human beings have a great misunderstanding of cognition that death is the worst outcome, but the fact is that many people are living death, because the only purpose of her being raised was to become a sex slave. So-called civilized government keeps making women as sex-slaves under the guise of “Women's rights” now. How evil human beings are! I stress it again: Death is not the most terrible thing in the world, because a lot of life is worse than death. 

Before I discuss the problem of arbitrage in different civilization, I should discuss a phenomenon that Westerners care about very much why Chinese people like having children, while Westerners dislike having children. The heart of the problem is supply and demand. As everyone knows, Europe are suffering the low fertility for many years. In order to maintain the steady state, the Western government tried lots of ways to convince people to have more kids. A French maman has at least 16 weeks of mandatory, paid maternity leave, as well as guaranteed job security and—if she has a third child—a monthly stipend of up to 1,000 euros for a year. In Norway, women are entitled to 10 months at their full salary or a year at 80 percent. Because these policies have been in place for decades, the countries' fertility rates are approaching 2.1, roughly the point where a population can sustain itself without immigration. Other nations are emulating this approach: Spain now offers a 2,500 euro bonus for every baby born. South Korea, which has one of the world's lowest fertility rates, shells out $3,000 per couple for in-vitro fertilization. And in Germany, where women have an average of 1.3 babies, Angela Merkel proposed up to 1,800 euros a month for stay-at-home parents, and more day-care centers to improve the public image of working moms—who have long been dubbed Rabenmütter, or "raven mothers." A Danish travel agency released an amazing commercial urging Danes to have more sex while on vacation. The ad points to the plummeting birth rate in Denmark as incentive for couples to take a romantic holiday and, as their slogan goes, "Do it for Denmark. Do it for Mon." In Northern Europe, people have entered the communist society by establishing social welfare from cradle to death. You will find a phenomenon that low fertility is not unique to Europe, and in richer Korea and japan, people are not willing to have children, and even in China the fertility aspirations of urban residents are also low. In big cities like Beijing and Shanghai, the number of births is already smaller than the number of deaths. Through these examples, it is not difficult for you to come to such a conclusion: The middle class is reluctant to give birth to children, and conversely the proletariat is willing to give birth to more children. Why is that? Please keep in mind that don't forget to resort to the interests when you are confused about any phenomenon. Now let's do it. Next, I'm going to apply the three steps in Microeconomics in building two sets of figures (Figure 6.4 and Figure 6.5) to explain why the West and the Chinese governments adopt two opposing strategies to deal with the population problem. 

Figure 6.4 represents how Westerners adjust their counter-strategies step by step. First of all, I want to defend the animals for a little bit. Non-human animals are simple with pure reproductive strategy which is to spread the genes as much as possible, because they are completely under the control of selfish genes without any self-consciousness. You would find a universal phenomenon that when the pups are adult, they will leave their mother completely and live alone. What does this mean? It means mother, as an individual or a survival machine, can't get any return from their children in this reproductive strategy. What about human beings? They are much more evil than animals, because they began to have self-awareness. I am sorry that I really can't figure out the difference between the two words: self-consciousness and self-awareness, so they all mean individual cognition which is independent of pure genes control. From now on, human being's reproductive strategy is not limited to spread genes purely as same as animals, but also to raise children against their old age. In other words, the purpose of having children and raising children in human beings had shifted from for gene's benefit to for individual's benefit. In essence, raising their children becomes a kind of investment for their old age. I had mentioned that raising daughters for money in their short-run interests while sons for age protection in their long-run interests. The change of purpose must be accompanied by the change of strategy. You could find that adoption phenomenon is very rare in animals world, but has long history in human beings. Where there is demand there will be supply, so baby trafficking is still rampant in China now. Would they be so kind to help people to spread genes? Definitely not. They did it for themselves. I don't raise any children of other people, because I have no purpose. 

Westerners always slander the purpose of raising children in China, let’s have a looking at the works of Westerners themselves. The famous novel named “The Metamorphosis” was written in 1915 by Franz Kafka who was a German-speaking Bohemian novelist and short-story writer, widely regarded as one of the major figures of 20th-century literature. What is The Metamorphosis about? The Metamorphosis plot focuses on Gregor Samsa, a traveling salesman and dutiful son who single-handedly supports his parents and sister. One morning, following one of his infrequent overnight visits to his parents' home, Gregor is shocked to find that his body has been changed into an insect. Gregor's family is horrified to discover the change in Gregor. Soon their shock gives way to disgust, but Gregor is mindful of their feelings and hides in the room when his sister brings his daily meals of Gregor, now unable to continue working to support them, discovers that his parents' claims of being too ill to work are false. Once Gregor becomes a problem rather than a provider, his family rejects him completely. His sister initially provides for his care and feeding, but she becomes indifferent to him, and he dies shortly after hearing his family's plans to abandon him. After its publication, the book was banned in Nazi Germany as well in the Soviet Union. For a period of time, after the Prague Spring, the book was banned in Czechoslovakia as well. I think the reason why this book was banned is its authenticity and cruelty. In short, the truth is always cruel. You can imagine that one day you wake up to discover you have been transformed into a giant insect, and your parents are going to love you or disgust you? Once you become a problem rather than a provider, your family feeds you or abandons you? People don't care what they have already got from you, but what else they can get from you in the future. The answer is in your heart. In China, the reason why many parents have a bad relationship with their adult children is that their children cannot earn a lot of money to feed them back. The ultimate goal of venture capital is not to run the company or love it but to sell it after the IPO. 

Let's get down to business. We can't draw the marginal cost and revenues curves of animals because they don't have any revenues from their children, but human beings do. This being so, let's go deeper how many children a rational man need to produce? According to microeconomics, the rational producer maximizes profit by producing the quantity at which marginal cost equals marginal revenue. In panel (a) of Figure 6.4, the marginal revenue decreases and the marginal cost increases, intersecting at point E_1, and a rational man would produce quantity at Q₁. Notice two things here: (1) At this time children are father's private goods, and there is no any externality in this scenario because father takes all raising costs as private costs while, of course, he gets all the revenues as private value; (2) Due to poor medical technology and endless war, the slope of marginal cost is very large, which means children are prone to death whether in childbirth or in parenting. The result is that, as same as animals, Q₁ is still very small although people never have birth control. In panel (b), other things being same, with the development of medical technology, only the slope of marginal cost becomes small. New marginal cost and old marginal revenue intersect at point E₂, and a rational man would produce quantity at Q₂. Obviously Q₂ is much bigger than Q₁. This is the first population expansion in human society. In panel (c), here comes the fun: Old-age pension. I dare say that the emergence of pensions in the West world is a turning point in the human reproductive strategy. According to Wikipedia, in the United Kingdom, the beginning of the modern state pension was the Old Age Pensions Act 1908. After the Second World War, the National Insurance Act 1946 completed universal coverage of social security. The National Assistance Act 1948 formally abolished the poor law, and gave a minimum income to those not paying national insurance. In United States, pension plans became popular in the United States during World War II, when wage freezes prohibited outright increases in workers' pay. The defined benefit plan had been the most popular and common type of retirement plan in the United States through the 1980s; since that time, defined contribution plans have become the more common type of retirement plan in the United States and many other western countries. We can say that the pension system became popular in West World after the World War II. I guess before the emergence of pension system, Europeans also need to have children to support themselves in their old age, especially the poor guys, unless you can inherit a fortune from your father, but the pension system changed their options. In other words, the purpose of raising children is replaced by pensions. The Game Theory told us you must change his/her payoffs if you want to change his/her option. Apparently, the emergence of pensions has changed people's choice by shifting marginal revenue to the down. Now MR₂ and MC₂ intersect at E₃, so a rational man will reduce the quantity to Q₃. Obviously, Q₃ is smaller than Q₂. What does it mean? It means Westerners are reluctant to give birth to children. Why? Useless. What does useless mean? It means, at this time children become public goods with positive externality for the whole society, which are neither excludable nor rival in consumption, but father takes all raising costs as private costs while he only gets a part of revenues as private value, so rational man does not take the external benefits into his account, so chooses to exit supply market. In the pension system, raising children is a positive external thing, infertile person becomes a free rider. As a result, in the absence of any public policy, people would devote too few resources to childbirth and raising. This is the essential reason for the decline of the population in the west. What should the government do? Hedging cost. In panel (d), in order to maintain quantity of Q₂, Western Government has to enacted policy as subsidy to hedge personal external cost by shifting MC₂ to MC₃. Notice one important thing here: Inertia. Here, inertia refers to people's behavior stickiness when an old Equilibrium was broken. For an example, if people are very rational and pragmatic with zero behavior inertia, when they have old-age pension, equilibrium point immediately jumps from E₂ to E₃; if people's behavior inertia is very large, their decision still stay at E₂ for a long time after pension and move from E₂ to E₃ very slowly. Similarly, the government's counter-strategy also has two problems: Timeliness and moderation. For an example, when people are very rational and pragmatic with zero behavior inertia, government should immediately formulate subsidy policy, or the population will rise and fall too much; when people's behavior inertia is very large, government should adopt dynamic subsidy, or people would overreact. In any case, all possibilities of the western society fall into the shadow of grey, mostly on the left because marginal revenue shifts down first. Pink arrow may be the real path. This is the real reason and history of Western population evolution. I have a few points to add. (1) You could say that children can bring fun to their parents. Yes, I admit that, but any imaginary numbers are not involved in real axis game. (2) The different people have different opportunity costs, and the poorer you are the lower opportunity costs you have, so when opportunity costs are very high, social welfare must become very large to maintain equilibrium. For example, I have huge opportunity costs, and I am not going to waste my time on my child, unless I can lower my cost. (3) According to the Western contract spirit, the birth contract is the choice of both parents, having nothing to do with child, so the child has no obligation to support his/her parents financially. You would find an interesting phenomenon: The West World, as the leader of the world, played the chain game very well. In other words, there is no big gap in West evolution. Modern medical care had developed first in West, and leaded to high baby survival rate and a rapid increase in population, and before long, pension system, as a restraint, appeared in Western history, so now westerners don't need birth control. Next, let's have a look at evolutionary process of Chinese population. You will find out that order really really matters a lot in evolution, which may lead to a diametrically opposed government strategy.

In panel (a) of Figure 6.5, as same as in Figure 6.4, the marginal revenue decreases and the marginal cost increases, intersecting at point E_1, and a rational man would produce quantity at Q₁. In panel (b), it is also the same. Advances in medical technology have led to the first steady expansion of the population. Next, difference comes. It is known to all that at the end of the World War II, China declared its entry into so-called “Communism” immediately. What does the word “Communism” mean? The principle of distribution in communist society is “from each according to his ability” and “to each according to his needs”. It means China entered free era, and everyone can get free medical care, free food, free house and free education. It sounds so perfect like in paradise or heaven, but the result backfired, because what has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it heaven. Food, health care, education and so on become common resources. are not excludable: They are available free of charge to anyone who wants to use them. Common resources are, however, rival in consumption: One person's use of the common resource reduces other people's ability to use it. Common resources inevitably lead to tragedy of commons. What causes the tragedy? The reason is that social and private incentives differ. For an individual, work becomes a thing of positive externality, and no one wants to work for society and everyone wants to be a free rider. These all mentioned above are one side of positive externality, but the fact is, what's more, that there is other side of negative externality. At this time there was no any old-age pension system in China, and people still needed their children's support in their old-age, so childbirth became a thing of negative externality, and everyone wanted children as many as possible because household got whole revenues as private value while took a small parts of the raising costs as private costs, so rational person did not take the external costs into his account and chose to enter the birth market. In panel (c), the emergence of communism had changed people's choice by shifting marginal cost to the down. Now MR₁ and MC₃ intersect at E₃, so a rational man will increase the quantity to Q₃. Obviously, Q₃ is much bigger than Q₂. Apparently, the cost curve moving first, cause the rapid expansion of China's population. In other words, Capitalism matches “raising children to provide against old age” very well, while Socialism matches “old-age pension” very well. On the contrary, Capitalism and “old-age pension” are incompatible, while Socialism and “raising children to provide against old age” are incompatible, because there is an arbitrage opportunity in each of them. We can see that the pension system has 60 years of history in the West at least. What about in China and when did China establish the pension system? China began to establish a pension system in 1986, and created the individual accounts during Railway System in1998. We can see that the pension system has only 20 years of history in China at most. Notice: There are 40 years of lag between West and China. China's baby boom was in 50s and 60s just during the lag of 40 years. In other words, at present, a large number of elderly people do not have pensions in China especially in rural areas. Who will support them? They did not pay the bills when they were young, and the government is certainly unwilling to cover the costs now. This is a very normal logic. What should Chinese government do? Transfer costs to their children, so the law of China requires that children have the duty to support parent. The government has instilled such logic into the public: I feed you up when you are young, you must feed me back when I am old. It sounds like a fair deal at first glance, but, unfortunately, you don’t obtain your children’s consent. Such a despot clause it is! This gangster contract led directly to the baby trafficking. Human trafficking is another sensitive question, but the West does not understand the nature of this affair. There are two entirely different forms of human trafficking: One is baby trafficking; the other is women trafficking, because they didn't share the same purpose. The former is a kind of investment, the latter is a kind of consumption, and the commons are that the both are forced trading and respond to incentives. You can't stop the evil until you know the real reasons. You must have seen the movie of Slumdog Millionaire. The bad man blinds the child's eyes in order to beg for more money. Who's the culprit? The bad guys? Definitely not. Foolish kindness and compassion led to the children's tragedy, because they created arbitrage opportunities. No one would waste any time and money on other's children if they can't get any return from the children. I once saw a story: a person was pushed out of a Pyramid selling organization because he ate too much. And, of course, there is also a non-economic reason. In order to prepare for the Third World War with the United States, then-leader encouraged fertility in the fifties. He needed as many cannon fodder as possible to protect his power. Until his death in 1976, the new leader Deng realized that the third world war could not break out, and the huge population had been great burden that a large number of hungry people would inevitably lead to civil commotion, so in 1982 one child policy was defined as a basic national policy and written into the Constitution for the first time. How to deal with this productive negative externality? Let us recall some knowledge of Microeconomics that all of the remedies share the goal of moving the allocation of resources closer to the social optimum. Who can tell me what called the social optimum? I think the social optimum is a state which can continue indefinitely without causing imbalance. About the question of externality, the government can respond in one of two ways. Command-and-control policies regulate behavior directly. Market-based policies provide incentives so that private decision makers will choose to solve the problem on their own. Obviously, the Chinese government, as a member of socialism, chose the one child policy as regulation at that time based on the principle of fairness. I strongly support the family planning policy because it was just a passive counter-strategy at that time, but in fact, instead of prohibition of birth in response to this reproductive negative externality, I prefer corrective taxes to regulations as a way to deal with negative externality. Poll tax or tradable birth permits. I prefer the latter one because trade can make everyone better off, and maybe I can get some money by selling my birth permit to another woman. Unfortunately, I know it is impossible in China, because money control belongs to the capitalist category and violence control belongs to the socialist category. Due to the function of reproduction conforms to the geometric quadratic, one child policy, first emergency brake, was a mandatory measure that the government had to take at that time. Fight terroir with terroir and fight violence with violence because we had no choice but only resort to coercive measures. Neutering male dog is very popular in the West because castration is the only way to control reproduction, otherwise, God must choose a high mortality rate to match. Apparently, first emergency brake was not enough for Chinese, from 1978 China embarked on the road of capitalism named “reform and opening up”. Like the enclosure movement in England in the 16th century, we gradually woke up from public ownership and entered the most brutal private ownership system. How to solve the problem of tragedy of commons? Internalizing the externality. In panel (d), privatized capitalism shifts the MC₃ to back to MC₂ to internalize the externality by increasing the cost of parenting, and equilibrium point moves from E₃ back to E₂. The high cost of raising is second brake, which must be passed on to parents in the form of higher raising prices. The emergence of pensions is third, last and fatal brake. At the end of the 20^th Century, the Chinese government imitated the West to carry out Pension system. As same as the pension's effect in West, the purpose of raising children is replaced by pension, so equilibrium point moves from E₂ to E₄. The emergence of pensions is third, last and fatal brake. Why don't I have a baby? Useless for me. Where did I get the courage? Pensions give me this courage because I like arbitrage as well. You'll find a common phenomenon in China: People who lives in city, are not willing to have children because they have good pension and reluctant to bear the high cost of parenting; people who lives in countryside, are still willing to have children because they have no pension and still need children's support when they get old. Because China is gradually entering the aging society, the shortage of pensions forced the government to change the policy from one child to two children even to open birth completely. Frankly speaking, China is not short of people, but there are too many old people for historical reasons, and almost all troubles in China now comes from the contradiction between huge population and limited resources, so Chinese have to fight for everything, such as school, medical resources, parking lot and so on and so forth. I believe that in the near future, in order to increase the population, the government has to subsidize fertility by shifting MC₂ to MC₃ as same reason as Western, and equilibrium point moves from E₄ to E₅. There is an inevitable consequence: The rural population gradually eliminated the urban population. The reason is very simple: On the road of reproductive professionalism, urban people will gradually become unqualified suppliers because they are faced with higher opportunity cost than rural people. Of course, before the subsidy, reproductive legalization of single women must also be realized. The law is changing over time, but usually the change is very slow and reaches over several generations. So far, in China, single women have no right to have own children without marriage, which was also one of the means of forcing women into monogamy in the past because the only reason why many women get into marriage is to have children. But with the decrease of birth rate, the authorities face the tradeoff between men and offspring. Now the Chinese government has to reweight the pros and cons. If single women are allowed to reproduce, the advantage is to increase the population without any subsidy, whereas the disadvantage is that more and more women will refuse to enter P-V model, which must lead men will lose free sex slaves, that must threaten social stability and the rule of the authorities, because the essence of this legalization is to separate function of the uterus from the function of the vagina, which is a part of God's strategies but depending on the timing. The essence of monogamy is to use women's strong reproductive desire to force women into the role of free prostitutes. This insidious strategy works well until the woman gives up her desire to reproduce, as a result of which authorities have to face trade-offs. Cheat is an eternal and cheap strategy. According to the latest unofficial news on the Internet, in order to tie women to two identities of vagina and uterus, Chinese government began to restrict abortion and divorce from 2018. Before that, you didn't need any proof and signature to go to the hospital to have an abortion, but now, abortion requires community certificates and parents' signatures; before that, both parties can divorce immediately as long as they go to the Marriage Registry, but now, they start to limit the number of divorces per day. This is a clear violation of the principle of free trade under contract civilization. The slave owners were worried because there are not enough slaves soon. The United States place women as double victims as well. The Georgia House Bill 481 was an American anti-abortion law passed in 2019 that sought to prevent physicians in the U.S. state of Georgia from performing abortions beyond six weeks, except in special situations. Why did the authorities dare to issue this heartbeat bill? They wanted to transfer the cost on women because they did believe women's choices are inflexible. How should women cope? Transfer costs to others. All women should shout to the authorities: If you don't let me have an abortion, I will refuse to take off my pants. After trade-offs, the authorities would definitely say that you'd better have an abortion. To be honest, the world is very unfriendly to women. Women are half victims and half accomplices, of course. Anyway, after taking the same problems of inertia, timeliness and moderation, all possibilities of the Chinese society fall into the shadow of grey, we are still going through the right because marginal cost shifts down first. Pink arrow may be the real path which is the real reason and history of Chinese population evolution. Which curve between supply and demand curves moves first is very important because it may lead to the opposite strategy. Now, you can understand very well what I said before “Order matters a lot in evolution”. For example, the order of death is very important in family heritage succession, which determines the way property is distributed. There is no short-cut in evolution, and cruel capitalism is inevitable where Chinese are going through now. 

Western civilization has a serious prejudice against the Chinese government just because it is under the guise of socialism. This prejudice is too arbitrary. I am not defending the Chinese government, but family planning was indeed an indispensable means in those years. To be frank, China was not the only country to adopt family planning policy, and in the last century Singapore also went through the pink route in panel (d). World War II in Singapore ended in 1945, and the years following caused the population to increase faster than the economy was developing. There were about 1 million baby boomers born between the years of 1947 and 1964, live births increasing 58%. With the rapid increase of Singapore after the war, the country would soon face of the effects of overpopulation, which could be the depletion of natural resources, degradation of environment, a rise in unemployment, and a higher cost of living. From 1947 to 1957, the social forces which caused the post–World War II baby boom elsewhere in the world also occurred in Singapore. The birth rate rose and the death rate fell; the average annual growth rate was 4.4%, of which 1% was due to immigration; Singapore experienced its highest birth rate in 1957 at 42.7 per thousand individuals. (This was also the same year the United States saw its peak birth rate.) Upon Singapore experiencing the many of the effects of overpopulation, and in fear of experiencing more, the Singapore government decided to step in. Fearing that Singapore's growing population might overburden the developing economy, Lee Kuan Yew, the first Prime Minister of Singapore, governing for three decades, recognized as the nation's founding father, started a vigorous Stop at Two family planning campaign. Abortion and sterilization were legalized in 1970, and women were urged to get sterilized after their second child. In addition to promoting just having two children, the government also encouraged individuals to delay having their second child and to marry late, reinforcing the inevitable demographic transition. The situation has changed over time, by 1987, the total fertility rate had dropped to 1.44. The Government of Singapore had recognized that falling birth rates were a serious problem and began to reverse its past policy of Stop-at-Two, encouraging higher birth rates instead. By 30 June of that year, the authorities had abolished the Family Planning and Population Board. In October 1987, future Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, the son of Lee Kuan Yew, exhorted Singaporeans to procreate rather than "passively watch ourselves going extinct". Starting 1990, a tax rebate of 20,000 SGD (US$18,000 in 2010 dollars, factoring historic exchange rates) were given to mothers who had their second child before the age of 28. Is Singapore's evolutionary path exactly in pink arrow consistent with my prediction? Of course, yes. In fact, China would be better if it also began sterilization in the 1950s. Unfortunately, there is no assumptions in history. 

When I come to population issues, I cannot avoid the book of An Essay on the Principle of Population written by Thomas Robert Malthus. I have just finished reading this good work recently, and I am surprised to find that I coincide with Malthus on many views. Here, I review this work for a little bit written two hundred years ago. He wrote: 

The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man…. Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will shew the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second…. By that law of our nature which makes food necessary to the life of man, the effects of these two unequal powers must be kept equal…. This implies a strong and constantly operating check on population from the difficulty of subsistence. This difficulty must fall somewhere and must necessarily be severely felt by a large portion of mankind…. Through the animal and vegetable kingdoms, nature has scattered the seeds of life abroad with the most profuse and liberal hand. She has been comparatively sparing in the room and the nourishment necessary to rear them. The germs of existence contained in this spot of earth, with ample food, and ample room to expand in, would fill millions of worlds in the course of a few thousand years. Necessity, that imperious all pervading law of nature, restrains them within the prescribed bounds. The race of plants and the race of animals shrink under this great restrictive law. And the race of man cannot, by any efforts of reason, escape from it. Among plants and animals its effects are waste of seed, sickness, and premature death. Among mankind, misery and vice. The former, misery, is an absolutely necessary consequence of it. Vice is a highly probable consequence, and we therefore see it abundantly prevail, but it ought not, perhaps, to be called an absolutely necessary consequence…. In the United States of America, where the means of subsistence have been more ample, the manners of the people more pure, and consequently the checks to early marriages fewer, than in any of the modern states of Europe, the population has been found to double itself in twenty-five years…. This ratio of increase, though short of the utmost power of population, yet as the result of actual experience, we will take as our rule, and say, that population, when unchecked, goes on doubling itself every twenty-five years or increases in a geometrical ratio…. Taking the population of the world at any number, a thousand millions, for instance, the human species would increase in the ratio of -- 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, etc. and subsistence as -- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc. In two centuries and a quarter, the population would be to the means of subsistence as 512 to 10: in three centuries as 4096 to 13, and in two thousand years the difference would be almost incalculable, though the produce in that time would have increased to an immense extent…. No limits whatever are placed to the productions of the earth; they may increase for ever and be greater than any assignable quantity. Yet still the power of population being a power of a superior order, the increase of the human species can only be kept commensurate to the increase of the means of subsistence by the constant operation of the strong law of necessity acting as a check upon the greater power.

In short, Malthus believes that the restrictive law of nature is the only reason to keep two unequal powers (the power of population and the power in the earth to produce subsistence) equal. His restrictive law is basically the same as my matching theory. In order to keep equilibrium, God must choose to strike a balance between in and out. A high “In” rate must match a high “Out” rate. In lots of China Insurance Companies, the only reason they are hiring every day is that they are laying off employees every day. Chinese securities brokers are also a profession with low threshold in and high elimination rate, which is quite cruel. Like the role of price is to prevent consumption, the role of misery is to prevent reproduction. I basically agree with him, except for two points. One is he believed plants and animals are all impelled by a powerful instinct to the increase of their species, and this instinct is interrupted by no reasoning or doubts about providing for their offspring. Facts proved that he was wrong because animals can adjust their reproductive strategies based on the different external environment. When the external environment becomes bad, animals will reduce their losses by reducing production or sterilization. It turns out that animals are rational, and they have rational birth control to maximize their payoffs because they are not in Communism society and can't pass the cost onto others. The other is he believed human beings are also driven to reproduce by an equally powerful instinct as same as non-human beings. Like I said before, human beings are in the half Orc stage, where they began to be controlled by individual consciousness and genetic consciousness both. Precisely speaking, the motive of human reproduction lies in somewhere between individual interests and genetic interests. At least in China, reproduction is an investment for their old age, and because of this, the strategy of adopting abandoned babies is logical. As time goes by, with the increase of individual opportunity cost, as reproduction becomes a negative externality, more and more people, who have higher opportunity costs, choose to withdraw from the reproductive market. Regardless whether the Chinese used to love having children, or refuse to have children right now in China, or love to have children in the West now, the common point is they are all pursuing personal interests, but the only difference is, as rational market participants, they rationally choose to enter or exit the reproductive market based on their own opportunity cost and external equilibrium price. These Chinese used to be qualified suppliers, but now they are unqualified suppliers; even though they are unqualified suppliers in China now, but they are still qualified suppliers in West. At present, two kinds of Chinese like to have children. One is rich people who tend to have more children because they make money easily, for example, those film stars who took advantage of the irrationality of the Chinese people and easily accumulated huge wealth, so money is cheap in their accounts. The other is poor people who also tend to have more children because they face very low opportunity costs and childbirth is a relatively cost-effective investment. In China, only the middle class does not have more children. There are two reasons: 1. It's not easy to make money; 2. Opportunity costs are high. Use Bill Clinton famous saying to sum up, “It's the economy, stupid.” In summary, human beings now are controlled by individuals and genes at the same time, so it is hard to predict their decisions accurately according to a single interest subject. Additionally, I am a little extended about Mr. Godwin and his utopian vision. In Matthew 7:15 Jesus reminds people to beware of false prophets: Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. I have never doubted their intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, which only throw the whole community in confusion. Communism will never come, because human endless desires and limited products are naturally unequal.

You must change the payoffs, if you want to change someone's option. The law acts only as a threshold made by human in order to preserve equilibrium. The differences in value preference around the world are staggering as same as it in living standards, so the equilibrium points must be reached in different location from country to country. In some countries, the roadside parking needs to be charged $5 to solve traffic jams, while in some other countries, it needs to be charged $10 to solve traffic jams. Different societies need different laws to maintain balance. Blind imitation inevitably leads to imbalances because the two share the different tipping points. According to Mr. Herbert Spencer, this principle, being that life depends on, or consists in, the incessant action and reaction of various forces, which, as throughout nature, are always tending towards an equilibrium; and when this tendency is slightly disturbed by any change, the vital forces gain in power. The law itself is divided into neither good nor bad, but either useful or useless. Useful law prevents people from doing evil while useless law encourages people to do evil. The law itself has a powerful demonstration effect. What kind of behavior should be punished by law? It depends on whether the society would fall into mess when all others follow this behavior. For example, baby hatch is the result of blind learning from the West, which should not exist in China at all. According to the news, the baby hatch in Guangzhou has received 262 babies in less than two months. All 262 babies suffer from disabilities or diseases such as cerebral palsy, Down's syndrome and congenital heart disease. This baby hatch has been overwhelmed with abandoned infants, forcing a suspension of services. The closing of baby hatch is a perfect display of degeneration after the failure of taking Chinese into the virtual state by stupid and radical people. One percent of birds (usually cuckoos and cowbirds but also including a species of duck), is entirely dependent on other species to raise their young. Naturally this arrangement is rarely to the advantage of the “host” birds, who may end up raising unrelated young in addition to their own. So, selects in the victim for the ability to recognize a strange-looking egg and eject it. This, in turn, selects for egg mimicry in the brood parasite because they have the tendency to produce eggs which have the same spotting and coloration as the eggs of the host. Baby hatch for them is as same as host nest for cuckoos or other 'brood-parasites', because a bird cuckoo deposits her egg and disappears as same as them. Why do the parents send their babies to baby hatch? The only reason is, from the perspective of personal interests, parents feel that continuing to invest is a money-losing business and want to transfer the costs to taxpayers. In other words, parents feel that disabled children are useless to them, but the key is that disabled children are useless to others as well. The existence of baby hatch inevitably creates arbitrage opportunity and a kind of built-in unfairness for poor guys who raises their own children. So, the bad and irresponsible genes would spread through the population, and the nice and responsible genes would break down. Arbitrageurs set a bad example to others because they did something bad but without any punishment, so soon afterwards others will follow suit to arbitrage. The closing of baby hatch is quite normal thing, just the matter of sooner or later. Even in the United States, bankruptcy law stipulates student loans and child support won't be forgiven. It is reported that Evander Holyfield has a minimum of 11 children and Dwight Howard has 10 children. Under American law, they have to provide financial support to all their biological children even in bankruptcy. Another question is, why don't pregnant women have prenatal exams? They totally can abort a malformed child before birth by modernized medical service, but still why? The reason is very simple: they are poor and have little opportunity cost. A pregnant woman should have at least four fetal examinations before birth, and of course these examinations could cost thousands of RMB. For most of Chinese, the best strategy is directly giving birth after 10 months without any examination, and then kill the baby if the parents find it deformed or female, and then give birth to next one. During the so-called classic times, it was common to expose babes to the tender mercies of wild beasts. Infanticide is also very common in animal. The mother dog would kill the defective puppy to avoid the waste of milk, and improve the survival rate of the other pup, because milk is limited and the mother must weigh the pros and cons. In trading stock, the three most important rules are “cut your losses, cut your losses, and cut your losses.” People respond to incentives only. An incentive is something that induces a person to act, such as the prospect of a punishment or a reward. Because rational people make decisions by comparing costs and benefits, they respond to incentives. You will see that incentives play a central role in the study of economics. One economist went so far as to suggest that the entire field could be simply summarized: “People respond to incentives. The rest is commentary.” Apparently, on fertility issues, Chinese and Westerners made opposite decisions because social and private incentives differed. For example, John Lone, a Chinese American actor, was born in HK but abandoned by his parents as soon as he was born, and then was adopted by an odd and disabled woman. Unfortunately, the only purpose of this women is just to get government subsidies through John Lone. A Korean film named Barbie (2012) illustrated that the only purpose of American rich people's adoption in South Korea is for organ transplantation. All hidden beneath the surface of beauty are cruel truths. Whether reproduction, adoption, abandonment or abortion is just the choice to maximize individual interests. When abortion in advance is more advantageous to them, they would choose abortion instead of giving birth. Public policymakers should never forget about incentives: Many policies change the costs or benefit that people face and, therefore, alter their behavior. In other words, subsidies people get from government affects their incentives and the decisions they make, and baby hatches reduce the benefits of responsibility. How to solve this problem? We must adopt the strategy of internalizing the externality as a response. This is the cruel reality and real equilibrium state where Chinese are. In this case, it is necessary for Chinese government to allow people to kill their own defective children before two years old because, for them, the cost of rebirth is far less than the cost of treating disabled children. Don't say I'm cold-blooded, unless you bear the costs of all these treatments. The Chinese and Western cultures have very different ideas about the death of the children. In China parents will receive popular sympathy when parents' negligence leads their children to death. The public believe the parents are the loss of the child's death because they have invested some sunk costs without any return. But when the same thing happens in Western countries, the public believe parents are murderers and must be punished by law. Human rights are a false proposition. 

The great difference about children between Chinese and Western stems from the property right of children. In West with developed old-age insurance, the beneficiaries of the children's existence are the whole society, and the property right of children belongs to the whole society, so parents will be deprived of their guardianship by the government if they don't treat children very well, and then the government has a special institution to take over the children. On the contrary, in China with underdeveloped old-age insurance, the beneficiaries of the children's existence are the parents, and the property right of children belongs to the parents, due to the negative externality, parents have the incentive to leave their children to the society. In short, in West children are public goods and in China children are private goods, so the market fails to allocate resources efficiently because property rights are not well established; that is, some item of value does not have an owner with the legal authority to control it. The starting point of contract civilization is the clarity of property rights and a well-defined individual right. I have the right to dispose of my personal belongings, including beating my horse, shooting my dogs eat my rats, and killing my baby. Chinese overseas students often complain that they beat dogs in the rental house, which was reported by the landlord, as a result of which they were warned by the police. In the eyes of Chinese people, it has nothing to do with you whether I beat my dog or my child. I advocate that parents have the right to kill their young and sick children in China, because the cost of treatment is much more than having another one. This belongs to the category of private rights. Don't stand on your moral high ground and judge them because you don't pay for them. In China, the government can't deprive the parental custody of their children because everyone will throw their children to the government. In the West, the essence of depriving the parental custody is to deprive revenue, but in China is to deprive cost. Committing the direction wrong is fatal. There are only two things in the world: One is how to split the interests; the other is how to apportion the costs. Children in China are just tools of parents: One is for supporting them in old age, the other is for fulfilling their unfinished dreams. The fact that all Chinese, especially mothers, put all their hopes on their children, illustrates two things: One is they have no self-awareness, the other is they despaired of China's current society, so they are eager to change their fate through their children after the failure of changing their fate through their husbands. Now, the education of the Chinese is abnormality. In the heart of women's comparisons, the children are speeding up towards the Communist society. Parents want children to be winner in everywhere in life, so children need to go to school earlier, get married earlier and giving birth earlier. There is a famous slogan of powdered milk in China, “Don't let your child lag behind the starting line.” This is the sorrow of the generation of one child. Owing to the pension deficit, the Chinese government allows two children to be born. The greatest benefit of Two-Children Policy, I think, is to collapse the unique alliance between parents and offspring, and let Chinese know there should be a boundary between any two adults, because under Two Children Policy, parent have to face how to invest in two children while two children have to face how to compete for parents’ limited resources. Two-Children Policy must break the Chinese traditional family as same as the fact that female orgasm must break the traditional sexual relations, because the only thing which can break the current equilibrium is interests. Maternal love is not great at all because nothing is great in evolution, which only related to personal calculations and opportunity costs. Recently, I saw an absurd news about second child like this: A couple approaching 50 years old insisted on having a second child despite their poor financial situation because their eldest son didn't filial piety them. It's not over yet, and the more absurd is still behind. Because they didn't have the money to raise their second son, they sued their eldest son for raising his younger brother after the eldest son refused to raise his young brother. This ridiculous lawsuit ended in that blackmailers win. The judge ruled that the elder brother must raise the younger brother. It's really a good play of passing on the costs to each other. Never doubt the purpose of reproduction. 

Many suitable policies in the West are not acclimatized in other countries, because they are located in different equilibrium states with different preferences and different budget line, so different the laws needed. The West should erode some popular beliefs about many things, such as One Child Policy, Same-sex marriage, Child Labor, Unmarried childbearing and so on and so forth. All the problems are how people face the tradeoff between short-term interests and long-term interests. Long-term interests can't be taken into people's account before the short-term interests satisfied. The first problem China faced is not human rights nor dictatorship, but poverty. At beginning, I may be tempted to conclude that a human life is priceless, influenced by Western values, but now I know I was wrong, and each person's life is worth different prices. A better way to value human life is to look at the risks that people are voluntarily willing to take and how much they must be paid for taking them. The life of a man who runs a red light must be worthless; the life of a child who is abandoned by his parents at the gate of baby hatch is worthless. You might say I am cold-blooded, but that is a fact. The value of each man's life is very different from each other as same as the time cost, depending on what you can do with your time. There is a stupid saying, “children are innocent.” But from genetic perspective, no child is innocent because one of the most striking properties of survival-machine behavior is its apparent purposiveness, and someone must pay for its purpose, from individual's perspective, we are all born guilty because we are all the products of sexual assault. A foolish policy can only lead to moral hazard. The most useless thing in the world is good intention with low intelligence. Let me reiterate my view that I support female infanticide because those girls who were born in families that tried to abort their children would suffer the living death all their lives. The only purpose of the government to keep them alive is to produce enough comfort women and placebos just under the guise of human rights. Shameless enough! How to maintain the balance from Game Theory? First of all, change the payoffs of the game of reproduction; secondly, people are governed by inertia, so the old regulation should continue to be used; finally, people gradually become rational and choose to enter or exit the market, and at this time, regulation gradually withdrew from the stage of history. Sometimes waiting is a good strategy. Waiting for what? Waiting for all old people without pensions dead. Learning from the West blindly will only lead to degeneration, even anti-stokes degeneration. All in all, species in different areas need to be inhibited differently, and don't forget, at any time, segregation is not the worst strategy. 

As a conservative, here I have to defend the dictators for a little bit. To be honest, Chinese must follow our own path instead of blind learning from the West. The failure of Baby hatch is a big lesson. From the above analysis of the population, we can easily draw conclusion that the Chinese government should adopt policies that are diametrically opposed to Western governments because what kind of policies government should adopt depends on which curve moves first, and any the government's strategy only serves as a hedge to keep equilibrium. It's hard for the Chinese government to deal with the population problem because the gap between the rich and the poor is too large. The Chinese have spent 40 years walking through the capitalism where the Westerners have been walking for 300 years. Not only the material civilization gap is big in China, the spiritual civilization disparity is bigger. In ancient China without any welfare system, people chose to reproduce as many as possible, so the government, at that time, had to choose “Poll tax” as counter-strategy to suppress the population explosion. In further, the better the social welfare, the more children the poor guys want. To be honest, the best strategy to deal with Chinese is the price discrimination, but I don't think it would be adopted by government because of so-called “Equality”. Like I said before, there is a purpose for Chinese to adopt children, and all goodness with a purpose is not really good, but just an investment. The misunderstanding between China and West lies in the child's property rights. In all confusion, the market fails to allocate resources efficiently because property rights are not well established. When you put aside the emotional factors, you can see through the reasons behind any seemingly opposite phenomenon. There are only two things in the world: (1) how to divide profits; (2) how to share costs. All the confusion in Utopia is due to no clear rights and responsibilities. The law stipulates who benefits and who pays. Nothing to do with human rights. I dare to say that there are many good policies in West, but are not suitable for China. If we take inappropriate strategies, it will inevitably lead to crazy arbitrage and collapse finally. Keep in mind that direction is more important than effort. 

Let's be frank and come to my conclusion: Human rights is a false proposition because human cognitive ability is always limited, otherwise Western woman would not be penetrated under the guise of lies. Human reasons, however, are subordinate to the Supreme mission, and different races are located on different equilibrium, so they must have different human rights. You can find that there is a greater difference between savage and civilized men than between some savage men and some beasts. You must be surprised at the gap between the state of nature and the state of so-called civilization, but I am not surprised by this gap. American president Trump once said, “These aren't people. These are animals.” My question is how to define which beings are human and which are non-human animals? The ambiguity of concept stems from the ambiguity you define. In my opinion, the former is guided by transaction civilization, and the latter violence civilization, so in some sense, savage men are closer to animals instead of humans. Havelock Ellis said that there are certainly more rapes committed in marriage than outside it. On many issues, same country in different times, have the opposite cognition, let alone different countries. What explains the huge change of human value preference depending on time and space? Similarly, there is a greater difference between men and women than between savage and civilized men, because men are only interested in something which is useful to them, while women are only interested in something which they like, so people believed that men are from Mars, and women are from Venus. If we look at sexual relationship with calm and disinterested eye, it seems, at first, to show us only the violence of men and the oppression of women. The mind is shocked at the blackness of the one, or is induced to lament the blindness of the other; and as nothing is less permanent in society than those relationships without any interest exchange, which seem at first glance to be founded merely on banks of shifting sand. Do not stand in your equilibrium to evaluate the human rights problems in the former equilibrium blindly. It's so childish and ridiculous like I use my identity of the Savior to judge the woman rights in P-V model, because in my eyes, any P-V model is just a sort of sex invasion regardless of whether women are willing or not. What the West showed the Middle East through its telescope is a fata morgana as same as utopia, and not the paradise, because there is no paradise at all in the world. What has always made the Middle East a hell on earth has been precisely that West has tried to make it so-called heaven. Different people face different budget lines due to different wealth, and different races have different have different behavior preferences due to the inertia of their own convention, so their points of tangency must be different, therefore different races need different laws, as thresholds, to maintain social equilibrium. The spread of the truth during different civilizations also inevitably has the problems of lag and confusion. For example, in Western Civilization people already have all kinds of hardware and software to accept the cruel truth, according to some news, one third of men would be OK having sex with a robot in German, and women are economically independent and men are willing to respect women's rights to say no in the legal and contract society with perfect pension system, so when the truth about female orgasm comes out western society can immediately enter the new stable state. The truth of female orgasm is very complex involving many aspects, such as female economic independence, social legal system, reproductive problems and pension system so on and so forth. In other words, west can bear the consequences of the truth, but other civilizations would fall into chaos after the truth. In China, despite the economic independence of women, women still need the protection of man in the brutal society, so you would find that phenomenon that leftover women are in Beijing and Shanghai and there is no leftover woman in rural courtside because lack of legal system where violence is still in a dominant position, therefore the truth of female orgasm must lead to some kind of chaos. In Middle East, most women can't go out to work, so women have to survive by marriage, therefore the truth has nothing to do with them. Similarly, in primitive Africa, rape must be still everywhere because lack of legal system regardless of the truth of female orgasm. That is why you would find an interesting thing that all kinds of lies about female orgasm only exist in society of women's economic independence, because there is no need to have any lies in barbaric civilization but female circumcision only. No matter the truth or lies can not change the barbaric civilization (E₀). 

Similarly, legality is a false proposition as well. As you know, different countries have opposite laws, because there is no unified opinion to the rightness or wrongness of actions in the world, so a nation regards an action as evil while another nation as a virtue. For some examples, Muslims can neither eat pork nor drink alcohol. Their aversion to the flesh of the "unclean beast" is resembling an instinctive antipathy. Drinking and eating pork is popular in the West. Gambling is legal in many Western countries, but illegal in China. Why? In fact, China also has a lottery which, in essence, is also a form of gambling. I think there two reasons why the government prohibits gambling. One reason is that the government wants to monopolize the interests of gambling, because gambling is a zero-sum proposition-players trading stakes, less the house cut. In other words, only the market maker can reap risk-free profits. Do you think a selfish government would give arbitrage opportunities to someone else? Definitely not. It is more reasonable to suppose a law to have been invented by those to whom it would be of service, than by those whom it must have harmed. The other reason is that Chinese are irrational groups, and losers must resort to violence because they would gamble beyond his economic power. The authorities do not want to see the escalation of violence threatening themselves. Except the legalization of gambling, different countries hold the opposite attitudes about the issue of the legalization of prostitution. I have seen a news that Cambridge students are working as prostitutes and strippers. The students claimed they sell their bodies to pay for tuition fees and living costs. Many feminists oppose the legalization of prostitution, because they think legalization has only resulted in “the explosive growth of legal brothels” and did not succeed in making the industry “safer” for women but rather resulted in an increase of trafficking in order to fill the demand. Anti-prostitution feminists hold that prostitution is a form of exploitation of women and male dominance over women, and a practice which is the result of the existing patriarchal societal order. These feminists argue that prostitution has a very negative effect, both on the prostitutes themselves and on society as a whole, as it reinforces stereotypical views about women, who are seen as sex objects which can be used and abused by men. In my opinion, these objections are totally illogical. I have two reasons against them. First reason is trafficking of women is the result of lack of legal system, have nothing to do with whether legalization of prostitution or not. In China, where prostitution is prohibited, but trafficking of women is very rampant. Here I recommend you a good movie called “Blind Mountain” which tells about women trafficking in China. Second reason is doing the same job on the bed, apparently, the charge strictly dominates free of charge for women. With the same services on bed, anything is better than nothing, and prostitutes are better than free prostitutes. I had given the reason why the government prohibits prostitution, the main reason is to cater to the broad masses of poor men, and the legalization of prostitutes must eliminate the free sex-service as soon as possible, because rational strategy is looking at a game, figuring out which strategies are dominated, deleting them immediately. Generally speaking, our society makes it illegal for people to sell their organs or blood. In essence, in the market for organs or blood, the government has imposed a price ceiling of zero. The result, as with any binding price ceiling, is a shortage of the good. Rationally speaking, no one should donate blood or organs based on Economics. However, fact is not like what economists expect. In order to increase blood supply, some western countries have ever changed unpaid blood donation into paid blood donation, but the result was not satisfactory. On the contrary, more and more people chose to exit the supply. Why is that? There is a key difference between unpaid blood donation and paid blood donation: one is an act of charity, and the other an act of commerce. When people are instilled with this concept that unpaid blood donation is equivalent to nobility, fraternity, morality and honor, any of which hard to value belongs to the imaginary axis, they make irrational decisions under utopian communism. When all of these auras are gone, people are entering computational capitalism, as a result of which people begin to count gains and losses pragmatically based on real axis and realize as soon as possible that selling blood is no more than a profession and people with lower opportunity costs will become a professional blood donor. Unpaid blood donation, as a strictly dominated strategy, would be eliminated by paid blood donation. Reason leads to bad outcomes. Of course, the blood of the fool is not enough. Blood trading on the black market, as an underground economy, still exists as a kind of compensation. Where there is a demand, there will always be a supply. The same logic also can apply to sex-service market. If one day prostitution is legalized, unpaid sex-service, as a strictly dominated strategy, would be eliminated by paid sex-service. As a result, more and more women, as unqualified sellers in sex-service market, will choose to exit the supply. Although prostitution is illegal in many countries, including U.S., prostitution never ever really disappeared. Such paid markets would lead to an efficient allocation of resources, but some critics worry about fairness. Markets for blood, organs and sex-service, they argue, would benefit the rich at the expense of the poor because blood, organs and sex-service would then be allocated to those most willing and able to pay. Isn't this the essence of market economy? Unpaid market merely transfers costs, not eliminates them. It is an eternal theme in the violent civilization that let the weak be more unfortunate, while the eternal theme in the contract civilization is that let the fool be more unfortunate. So, Feminism is a false proposition too. What kind of behavior should be banned? There is no such law good or bad, only suitable or inappropriate. No person ought to be punished simply for being drunk, but must be punished for drunk driving. When your actions affect others, or you pass on the cost or risk of your actions to someone else, such behaviours should be prohibited, including drugs and drunk driving. Suitable laws are good at internalizing costs in order to prevent unrestrained bullying. The law of the Lombards15 has a regulation which ought to be adopted by all governments. “If a master debauches his slave's wife, the slave and his wife shall be restored to their freedom.” An admirable expedient, which, without severity, lays a powerful restraint on the incontinence of masters! 

Order matters a lot in evolution

Here I intend to use the electron configurations in The Periodic Table to illustrate the importance of orders in evolution, and then I will end up with an important conclusion that there is no problem called “Human Rights”. The following figure 6.6 is social stability configuration table, I inspired by the electron configurations in Chemistry. As our story begins, first of all, you must admit that a closed civilization must be in a stable state as same as the example of Isolandian textile market in Microeconomics written by N. Gregory Mankiw. In any isolated system, domestic interests of all parties must reach an equilibrium state without any international communication. What is human civilization? It is a series of discontinuous stable states. Why discontinuous? The answer is simple: segregation by environment like I said before. If without segregation, the two systems must be combined together to form an only one equilibrium. Everyone knows the most stable electron configuration is when the entire shell is full (noble gas configuration). In the case of noble gases there will be eight electrons in the valence (outer most) shell (with the exception of He which has two electrons). All atoms would like to attain electron configurations like noble gases, i.e., have completed outer shells. Atoms can form stable electron configurations like noble gases by losing electrons, gaining electrons and sharing electrons. For a stable configuration each atom must fill its outer energy level. Atoms that have 1, 2 or 3 electrons in their outer levels will tend to lose them in interactions with atoms that have 5, 6 or 7 electrons in their outer levels. Atoms that have 5, 6 or 7 electrons in their outer levels will tend to gain electrons from atoms with 1, 2 or 3 electrons in their outer levels. Atoms that have 4 electrons in the outer most energy level will tend neither to totally lose nor totally gain electrons during interactions and thus they tend to share electrons. What can we get from chemical world? Different civilizations, as stable configurations, must stay in Group 18 (noble gas configurations). For example, maybe African civilization stays in Argon with 18 (2+8+8) electrons, and Middle east civilization stays in Krypton with 36 (2+8+8+18) electrons, and Oriental civilization stays in Xenon with 54 (2+8+8+18+18) electrons, and Western civilization stays in Radon with 86 (2+8+8+18+18+32) electrons. Have you considered the problem that the evolution of human beings is a ladder type, but time is continuous, and how does it work? The answer is simple too: In the Periodic Table, atoms choose to achieve stable configurations by gaining or losing outer electrons, and similarly in human evolution, authorities choose to achieve stable states by resorting to violence and lies. The law of monogamy belongs to violence, while love and G-spot belong to lies. Notice here: Each atom in Group 18 is in a stable configuration but with different electrons configurations. In other words, you have to fill different electronic orbits when you want to be different position in Group 18, although their outermost layers are all the P orbits which hold total of 6 electrons. In any isolated system, all parties reach an equilibrium state, and because of no comparison there is no human rights issues. Now suppose that, in an election upset, Isoland elects a new president. The president campaigned on a platform of “open” and promised the voters bold new ideas. With the opening of the country, the troubles followed. Someone says, “I require monogamy because western countries are monogamy, and it's not fair to me.” Someone says, “I require fertility subsidy because Western governments subsidize fertility, and it's not fair to me.” Someone says, “I require election because western countries are elected, and it's not fair to me.” When there is a comparison, all people want the government to make policies towards his/her own advantage but forget to consider whether the new equilibrium can be maintained. In this mess, the government is also muddled, so the whole people entered the utopian communism, and no one can judge by reason, and no one can put himself/herself into other people's shoes. Everyone restrains himself/herself according to the standard of a bitch but others according to the standard of a saint! Let's go back to Group 18. Let's suppose one civilization stays in Neon equilibrium where full electronic configuration is 1s2 2s2 2p6, because their material civilization and spiritual civilization can only fill orbits of 1s, 2s and 2p; another civilization stays in Krypton equilibrium where full electronic configuration is 1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p6 4s2 3d10 4p6; a third civilization stays in Radon equilibrium where full electronic configuration is 1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p6 4s2 3d10 4p6 5s2 4d10 5p6 6s2 4f14 5d10 6p6. Under the guise of fairness, justice and human rights, everyone in Neon equilibrium tried to gain the electrons from 4p6 or 6p6. Do you think it's possible? Of course not. There is basic rule for filling orbitals: Lowest energy orbitals fill first which is a general role and also can be applied in evolution. According to this principle, the electrons will first occupy the orbitals that have the lowest energy. This means that the electrons enter first orbital and then enter the orbitals which have higher energy but only when the lower energy orbitals are completely filled. What does it mean? It means you can't get the electron from 4p6 without completely filling these orbitals of 3s2 3p6 4s2 3d10, or you can't get the election from 6p6 without completely filling these orbitals of 3s2 3p6 4s2 3d10 4p6 5s2 4d10 5p6 6s2 4f14 5d10. There is no short-cut in evolution, and order matters a lot in evolution, and we have to evolve step by step. Please be patient. Once you make mistake in orders, you must pay a heavy price to get back to the right path. Direction is more important than effort. Here is an example: Pollution and becoming rich. Environmental pollution is inevitable for any country to become rich. To tolerate pollution is a necessary condition for China to become rich. It is impossible to get rich and clean environment at same time. The poor have low evaluation of the environment while the rich have a high evaluation of the environment, so the poor are willing to exchange goods and services with clean environment, but the rich are not. Any country on its way to rich must experience pollution first and then control. There is no industrial pollution in Africa so they are still in primitive civilization. For the same reason, there is no short-cut in intellectual property, piracy and fake goods in China. There is an old saying in China, “You can know honor or disgrace after you get rich in materials.” When you are hungry, you don't deserve any courtesy and dignity. Your position in evolution determines all strategies you could have like the position of an atom in the periodic table determines all its properties. Fluorine is destined to be an electron acceptor because it is really happy taking an electron from another atom or taking a free electron. That is very favorable for fluorine. On the contrary, sodium is destined to be an electron donor because it is really happy giving an electron away. That is also very favorable for sodium. The essence of Western ignorance is forcing fluoride to lose electrons and forcing sodium to get electrons. 

There is another principle called Pauli exclusion. In my word, Pauli exclusion means the advanced material civilization is incompatible with the lower spiritual civilization. I am not going to trot out the catalogue, but will mention just a few my experiences. There is a garden in front of my apartment where all kinds of trees are planted. I know from the good intentions of the government, in order to make people rest better, government built some stone tables and stone benches. I tell you the beginning, but I promise you can't guess the end. Two years later, all the stone tables and stone benches were destroyed. Why is that? Are there too many bad guys in China? No. The real reason is someone howled loudly on the stone benches and playing cards on the stone tables at night even whole night until to sunrise, and the use of electricity magnifies this confusion. I bet the destroyer must live nearby because that's the last straw. The chaos of the world comes from the broadcasting of zero thresholds, and the result of blind equality is many people get the freedom that they should not have. Similarly, the Chinese have already lived the building, but they do not have the spiritual civilization of living the building, so falling objects from high building and noise nuisance happen every day. In Switzerland, there are rules that govern the use of the communal laundry room and taking a bath or shower at night, and many apartment blocks have their own rules on toilet flushing after a certain time, noise, jumping up and down on floors (must be difficult if you have got children), and other “minor” rules aimed at making the apartment block peaceful for everyone. Local police regulations in most areas call for peace and quiet between 10pm and 7am, and keeping a dog or cat, for instance, will make you ineligible for many rented apartments. These are spiritual civilizations which Chinese are lacking of, so Chinese has been in a variety of chaos where the Westerners must go crazy if live in. Additionally, low quality population are everywhere, such as a full professor, who bought a table tennis table and put it in his apartment, played ping-pong every night. In order to deal with the noise from upstairs, people from downstairs evolved a counter-strategy that a kind of oscillator was invented for revenge. Essentially, we can regard oscillator and poisoning dog as hedging means, aiming at transferring the cost of doing evil back to the perpetrator. Trust me, there is no other way because Tit for tat is the last way. It is true that because of too loud and too rude almost whole world hate Chinese tourists. Jeremy Clarkson, a famous British media man, posted a video on the TV presenter's Instagram where Clarkson mouthed 'shout up' to the camera on Chinese train because a guy was chatting loudly on the phone "for hours". Suddenly, I know the reason why there was a sign at the entrance to the Huangpu Park in Shanghai 100 years ago supposedly announced: "No Dogs or Chinese Allowed." A hundred years have passed, and the Chinese people have not changed anything. A German fashion store, called Blutsgeschwister, posted a Chinese notice in January 2019 to warn the Chinese not to eat or drink, or spit, or shout in the store. Among the grievances, voiced from Thailand to Paris to New York, are Chinese tourists' tendency to spit, to speak loudly indoors, and to have no concept of how to form or respect a line. Specific recent transgressions that sparked outrage both domestically and abroad include Chinese tourists inadvertently killing a dolphin and a Chinese youth carving his name into an ancient Egyptian relic. Those habits of lower civilizations are incompatible with the modern civilizations of higher order. Chinese mourners have been burning joss paper – known as “ghost money” – for centuries. This is largely due to a folk belief in China that if you burn paper money and make offerings at the graves of your ancestors, the deceased will receive them and benefit from a happy and prosperous afterlife. But this ancient custom which makes the whole community smoky is incompatible with Chinese modern civilization. Moreover, burning paper causes forest fires every year. Many Chinese people live in high-rise apartments, but they did not learn the rules of high-rise housing. In reality, high-altitude parabolic cause damage occurred from time to not only difficult to stop, and more frequent. I don't have a license, nor do I buy a car, nor do I want to associate with lawless Chinese, because I don't want to be dragged into quagmire. Those people who have not been trained by modern traffic rules must inevitably appear to be out of order in modern traffic civilization. In addition, driverless technology is not suitable for low civilization at all because there are always pedestrians in front of the car regardless of green light or red light. They look like a locust plague. Safety hammers are often lost on buses because social and private incentives differ. Shared bikes are badly damaged because of the tragedy of the commons. Here is a new report: The Chinese simply love IKEA! Millions visit the company's mainland stores every year, but only a few of them actually end up buying something, as many just come to enjoy the air-conditioning on a hot summer day and take a nap on the comfy furniture on display. According to several reports, and photos, many Chinese people plan out day at IKEA. They drive to a store from miles away, eat, drink and nap in public, enjoying the cool air on a hot summer day, and a lot of male visitors were topless while sleeping. Scenes inside Chinese IKEA store make people speechless! In addition, in order to enjoy free air conditioning, the Chinese also occupy the library and subway passageway. The counter-strategies of western advanced civilization cannot deal with the people of low civilization, but that of low civilization can. Recently, I saw a funny short video, which showed that a group of old men and women dance in the lobby of a hotel which provide free air conditioning inside. The staff consulted with them and they refused to leave. Apparently, western preaching doesn't work. Guess what the staff did to get rid of them? The staff turned up the air conditioner to 30 degrees, and the old people fled. Western material civilization air conditioning does not match the status of Chinese, because Chinese people already have the desire to enjoy western material, but they are reluctant to bear the cost. West Metro Automatic Check-in does not match the Chinese because no one will buy tickets in China; automatic coin parking in the United States does not match the Chinese either because it is common for many drivers to beat toll collectors in order to escape the charges in China; self-service supermarket does not match the Chinese either because there are many thieves in non-self-service supermarket, let alone in self-service; mix room does not match the Chinese either because Chinese poor men like to shoot and harass the women in mix room. Democracy makes no exceptions. These self-service systems are the product of contract civilization and are not suitable for violent civilization. There is a very big misunderstanding in the world, namely regard freedom as civilization. On the contrary, civilization is the containment of freedom. There is principle of freedom—no harm principle which they cannot abide by, so they don't deserve that freedom. Now, the Chinese also have the inability of the proletariat, but they have the desire of the bourgeoisie, so the imbalance and chaos are inevitable. 40 years of reform and opening up have given them desire, but not ability. They all want to get products and services as many as possible but at expense of nothing as same as proletarian men who want to get sex-services for free. Similarly, women don't have the ability of men, but have the desire of men, so the imbalance and chaos are inevitable. Just as God treats women, God's strategy is to cast off your desires when you are capable of reaching the next equilibrium. Chinese don't deserve sympathy or helping, so do women. 

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that there are more than 200 million stray dogs worldwide and that every year, 55,000 people die from rabies, while another 15 million receive post exposure treatment to avert the deadly disease. 95% of these cases occur in Asia and Africa, and 99% of the fatalities are caused by dogs. The stray dog-driven rabies crisis in Bali is hardly unique: India culls as many as 100,000 strays at a time, while attacks by marauding packs of dogs in Baghdad have led to a reinstitution of the same eradication program that was operated under Saddam Hussein. Its goal: the culling of over one million stray dogs. In Bangkok and many other Asian and African locales, living with strays and rabies is just an accepted fact of life. An estimated 200 dogs per square kilometer occupy Bangkok, fouling sidewalks and streets, causing traffic accidents and serving as vectors for rabies and other diseases. Incomplete statistics show that there are 40 million stray dogs in China now, and this number increases at a rate of 1.5 times a year. Stray dogs can be found in every corner of every city. In an egregious act of animal cruelty, a city in China has opted to kill 36,000 stray and pet dogs. The motivation behind the killings was the elimination of rabies. The eradication measures employed by third world countries—poisoning and shooting strays—spark sensational headlines and searing criticism in the West. A nip on the ankle by a stray dog in any of these developing countries quickly jolts Western tourists into the life and death reality of the situation. “Thankfully” the stray dog overpopulation crisis has earned the attention of Western humanitarians, animal welfare organizations and businesses. Not only did these Western holy mother bitches save the refugees, but they started to save the stray dogs as well. Lots of ignorant and naive Chinese (women in particular), under the brainwash of the Western holy mother bitches, begin to be the Savior of stray dogs. The slaughter of cats and dogs for meat is not outlawed in China. These lunatics are starting to stop culling of stray dogs and eating dog meat. Vietnamese also love dog meat very much, which does not cause any confusion in Vietnam. Not only that, but the Vietnamese love to eat cats. Do cats have cat rights? What about chickens, ducks, pigs, cows and sheep? The superposition of multiple civilizations makes it impossible for Chinese people to reach consensus on the issue of stray dogs. It reminds me of a recent news story: A vegan activist group still hasn't let up on protesting outside of local Toronto restaurant Antler Kitchen & Bar. Protesters hold a large black-and-pink banner that reads “MURDER” in front of the window. Some protesters hold a sign reading 'in memory of the animals who didn't want to die'. To be honest, I don't want to die either, but I have to. What surprised me more is, in northern Europe, not only do people eat meat, but they don't drink milk either. They do believe that drinking milk is an immoral act because only after forced mating are cows going to produce milk. Milk has been replaced by Oat Milk in many places in northern Europe. No! Are you kidding me? So far, women still have been tricked into P-V model by love, but you now tell me P-V model is immoral for a cow. Are you insane or crazy? Do you think it is ridiculous and absurd? These Communist hooligans have become a thorough public hazard in the world. Let me say it again: The rules of higher civilization can never restrain the beings of lower civilization. First, I would like to focus on raising dogs in China. The raising of dogs was banned under the rule of late Chinese leader Mao Zedong and considered a bourgeois pastime. It was only after the reform and opening up that raising dog was acquiesced in but with Zero-threshold. Chinese have already begun to breed dogs, but they do not have the spiritual civilization of keeping dogs. They refuse to leash their dogs in the public area and leave dog shit everywhere and bites happen every day, and roaming dogs are considered outlaws almost everywhere in each city. Dogs create a negative externality because neighbors are disturbed by the noise. Dog owners do not bear the full cost of the noise and shit, therefore, tend to take too few precautions to prevent their dogs from barking and off leash. In West, the signs of “you dog must be on leash” are visible everywhere. Germany has 8 million dogs without any stray one. They are living in the shelter with well protection, or home with care. Dog owners must keep their dogs on a leash while walking them on public streets in housing areas. In all other areas, dogs must be automatically put on a leash when other people approach. Violators may be punished with fines up to €5,000. Dog owners need to make sure that their pets don't bark and whine during quiet hours: 1 to 3 p.m. and 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. Outside these hours, dog owners must ensure that dog noises do not last longer than 10 consecutive minutes (or more than 30 minutes cumulatively per day). Each dog must be implanted a microchip and has dog liability insurance as same as Compulsory Traffic Insurance, which protects you from financial responsibilities if your dog injures a person or causes property damage. There are many breeds of dogs that are considered aggressive by nature, but all dogs have the potential to cause harm unintentionally. In America, "Vicious dog" or "dangerous dog" laws impose special restrictions on dogs that are officially labeled dangerous or potentially dangerous. All of the above measures in the West do not exist in China, but Chinese people want to keep dogs, do you think it is possible? To be honest, because of the huge population, the population density of the city is very large, so raising dogs have serious negative externalities, as a result of which Chinese cities are not suitable for raising dogs. In Japan, stray dogs are allowed to live for up to 1 months and nearly 30,000 stray dogs and 70,000 cats are euthanized by the government according to law. There is a Japanese movie called Kono Machi no Inochi ni (この街の命に), which tells how a Japanese animal protection center slaughter dogs and cats that are abandoned and how to reduce killing. Enforced in 2000, the “Cruelty against Animals act” was a groundbreaking law. According to Article 2, considering that animals are living creatures, no person should kill animals without due cause hurt them, or torment them. We should give consideration to the co-existence of humans and animals and in view of that nature, we should treat them fairly. It's a good movie, and I set my mind at ease after I see Japanese are fret and dwell on disposing of cats and dogs. I reckon that if World War III breaks out, China must be able to wipe out Japan. The reason is the Japanese are totally different from the Japanese 80 years ago, but the Chinese are the same as the Chinese 80 years ago. How can the Japanese kill people when they don't even want to kill dogs? Higher civilization is doomed to perish. Japanese heart of glass amused me, and they even give a dog artificial respiration. Frankly speaking, China should not set up stray dog shelter at present. The reason is simple: you can't keep the balance of human baby hatch, let alone stray dog shelter. You can't even deal with animals under the guise of human skin, how can you deal with the real animals? Either euthanasia or shelter has a cost anyway, and the key problem is who will bear these costs? How many taxpayers in China are willing to waste their money on stray dogs? Human rights are a false proposition, let alone dogs' rights. Some holy mother bitches claimed that dogs should have the same rights as humans, and they even believed that neutering is a violation of dogs' rights. Are they insane? Dog can already give birth at age 7 months. And they give birth twice a year. If left unchecked, they will rapidly increase in population. Recently, I saw a news that, according to Reuters, Thailand has started sterilizing hundreds of monkeys in a city famous for its macaque population, as the coronavirus pandemic leaves them hungry, aggressive and wrestling food from terrified residents. "They're so used to having tourists feed them and the city provides no space for them to fend for themselves," said Supakarn Kaewchot, a government veterinarian. "With the tourists gone, they've been more aggressive, fighting humans for food to survive," she told Reuters. "They're invading buildings and forcing locals to flee their homes." Unlike monkeys in the wild, city monkeys need not hunt for food, giving them more time and energy to reproduce and cause trouble, Supakarn said. The government aims to sterilize 500 of the macaques over the next two months. Supakarn said the sterilization would pose no threat to the monkey population and the aim was just to slow down the rate of its urban growth. "We're not doing this in the wild, only in the city areas." Fortunately, there is not so many money's bitch to stop this sterilization in Thailand. I deeply felt that two-legged bitches are more difficult to deal with than four-legged bitches. Using the words of hero Carter in the movie of Deep Blue Sea, “How much dynamite do you have to set off in your ears before your head clears? You have knocked us to the bottom of the goddamn food chain.” Chinese people are always short-sighted, and they could not reasonably predict the subsequent costs of the whole event. China raise dogs as well as children: Raise them when they are useful and abandon them when they are useless. I refused to wipe their butts. Different external environments choose different characters, as a result of which rogue environment creates rogue people. Why don't you believe that rogue people can only raise vicious dogs as well? As same as people, western dogs and Chinese dogs are totally different products of different environments. You put them together and you will get it. Let's see what Mahatma Ghandi said on stray dogs, “A roving dog without an owner is a danger to society and a swarm of them is a menace to its very existence... If we want to keep dogs in towns or villages in a decent manner no dog should be suffered to wander. There should be no stray dogs even as we have no stray cattle... But can we take individual charge of these roving dogs? Can we have a pinjrapole for them? If both these things are impossible then there seems to me no alternative except to kill them... it is an insult to the starving dog to throw a crumb at him. Roving dogs do not indicate compassion and civilization in society; they betray instead the ignorance and lethargy of its members... that means we should keep them and treat them with respect as we do our companions and not allow them to roam about.” It also costs money to kill stray dogs. What is the best strategy in China? Westerners have money, so they can choose to euthanasia, while Chinese are poor, so we need to turn the waste into profits. The best strategy in China is dog-eating festival. The government should stipulate three points: (1) All dogs without leash are called stray dogs; (2) Anyone has the right to kill a stray dog; (3) It's legal to eat dog meat in China. This is a way to kill two birds with one stone. Private motives begin to work, and the government does not need any input. In short, raising a pet, which belongs to higher civilization, is incompatible with lower civilization. Unfortunately, under the interference of the Western cult of dogs' rights, the Chinese government has become timid. I don't know when the ignorant Chinese were indoctrinated by capitalism into the view that dogs are human friends. Your dog may be your friend, but it's not mine. You must have seen such a news: North Korean official Jang Sung-taek was executed by being thrown into a cage with 120 starved dogs. If this news is true, I'm sure these dogs are not Jang's friends. On August 1^st, 2020, in Guizhou Province, China, a three-year-old boy had half his half face ripped off by his family own dog. Don't tell me that this kind of tragedy only happens in China. According to a latest news, Bridger Walker from Wyoming, United States rescued his little sister from a dog and ended up battered and bruised with 90 stitches on his face. I was shocked by the news and moved by the courage of the little boy after seeing the news. Apparently, this dog is not a friend of the brother and sister. It is not a unique tragedy in West Countries. New Zealanders experienced almost ten thousand dog-related injuries in 2010, according to ACC. In April 2011, in Auckland a seven-year-old boy had a quarter of his face sewn back on following a dog attack and a three-year-old boy also sustained facial injuries from a stranger's dog outside a shop. In May 2011, the eight-year-old Dunedin boy who had half his ear ripped off by a dog. Who can forget the terrible case of little Carolina Anderson in 2003 who was the victim of a vicious dog attack while playing in an Auckland park? Carolina, now aged fifteen, still undergoes facial surgery following this shocking mauling. According to the latest news reported by New York Post, a 20-year-old Russian beautician is fighting for life after a pack of wild dogs gnawed her face off during a frenzied attack. Tatyana Loskutnikova, a nail artist, was savaged by a pack of 10 dogs as she walked through Ulan-Ude city, in far eastern Siberia, on the morning of December 23 2020. A pack of 10 dogs savaged Ms Loskutnikova - tearing her clothes off in -22C (-7.6F) temperatures, biting her down to the bone and gnawing the skin off her face. When the rescuers were finally able to get to Loskutnikova, they found her face was 'damaged beyond recognition' with even her eyelids removed. Now, where are those dog bitches? Can the entertainment of the rich ignore the lives of the poor? Can capital put dog rights over human rights? Is this what you call human rights? All bullshit! The chaos of the world is caused by the West. It is because the Western civilization attempts to use contractual civilization to restrain the survival machine in violent civilization.

Westerners have gone too far on this evil road because their mediocrity is not only limited to dogs but also to some ferocious animals. More and more ridiculous things happened in recent decades. Not along ago, I saw a new from BBC that a man who lived in the eastern Czech town of Zdechov has been killed by the pet lion he kept in his family home for breeding purposes, having gotten locked in the big cat's cage. Prasek used the animals for breeding and his business had reportedly drawn numerous complaints from neighbors. He deserves no sympathy, but the lion deserves praise for not hurting others. This is not a unique instance, but there are some more absurd. Grizzly Man is a 2005 American documentary film by German director Werner Herzog. It chronicles the life and death of bear enthusiast Timothy Treadwell. The film includes some of Treadwell's own footage of his interactions with grizzly bears before 2003, and of interviews with people who knew, or were involved with Treadwell, as well as professionals dealing with wild bears. He and his girlfriend Amie Huguenard were mauled, killed and eaten by a grizzly bear on October 6, 2003. I should congratulate him because finally he died as he said in his video, “I would never, ever kill a bear in defense of my own life. I bleed for them. I live for them. I die for them.” What surprised me most was he said he wanted to be a bear and no longer human being. To be honest, it's a kind of disease, cognitive disorder, or holy mother bitch disease, or Virgin bitch disease, or something, but Treadwell is a little better than these bitches because did not transfer the cost to others but to himself only. This disease is a sort of cult, which will pull us back to the bottom of the food chain. The retarded are trying to make friends with them, but they're trying to make use of you to survive and reproduce better. When human has replaced God as the creator, unfortunately the new creator is mentally retarded, who forget Churchill's famous saying, “There are no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests.” There are no forever friends between people, let alone between people and animals. In his video, the most words Treadwell said was, “I love you,” but he forgot what Dawkins said, “Universal love and the welfare of the species as a whole are concepts that simply do not make evolutionary sense.” The retarded view those big and ferocious bears as pets, and attempt to use the rules of contractual civilization to restrain the survival machine of violent civilization. If one day Treadwell really became a bear in future, he should abide by the rules of violent civilization instead of instead of vice versa. It's him, not the bear, who needs to change. Keep in mind that it's a different world that bears live in than we do because one belongs to the category of violent civilization while the other contractual civilization. Segregation is the best strategy. The bears avoid us and we avoid them too. We don't invade on their territory and they do not invade on my space. They are not habituated to us and vice versa. There is an unspoken boundary, an unknown boundary, between the wild animals and human beings. If we look at it from my culture, Treadwell crossed a boundary that we have lived with for 7000 years. Once we have crossed it, we pay the price. Frank speaking, during violent civilization, compared with those bears, people need more protection. Similarly, during violent civilization, compared with refugees from the Middle East, White Europeans need more protection. The world today is dominated by a cult that I'm always right just because I'm weak. Unfortunately, under human intervention, natural selection is replaced by artificial selection gradually. It's well-known that the panda is China's national treasure. Isn't it funny that a failed survival machine has been protected by human beings? Conversely, a successful survival machine like a mouse or a cockroach are wiped out by humans. As a new Creator, human beings are not qualified enough. I've read such a piece of news in 2019: Malaysian-Born panda cub moves back to China because we can't afford to raise it. “If we wanted to keep it, we would have to expand the Giant Panda Conservation Centre at Zoo Negara, on top of the yearly US$600,000 (RM2.5 million) fee and other expenses,” Malaysian officials said. It is not a unique instance, but has its counterpart. Canada's Calgary Zoo returns two pandas to China in 2020 due to high rents and subsequent holding costs. It is truth that the mediocrity of capitalism adorablized these cruel survival machines, which come equipped to exploit you and kill you and eat you, in order to cater to irrational women and ignorant children for making money. When revenue cannot cover cost, rational people naturally give up. Under the guise of any protection, it's just a business. I cannot imagine those people like Treadwell who enslaved women every night called for the rights of animals during the day. Isn't that ridiculous? Don't you think he's schizophrenic? Human beings have been bewitched to an absurd situation by mediocrity where people pay much attention and investment on other creatures than on ourselves. So far, the mediocre masses had a mysterious savior plot from nowhere, and they tried to domesticate any creature in the world. In the movie of Jurassic Park, naïve people tried to tame Dinosaurs. Needless to say, there are only two outcomes: failure or exploited. Grizzlies example belongs to the former, while panda belongs to the latter. The laws of nature cannot be violated. The ignorant tried to conquer everything, including the nature, as a result of which nature taught them a good lesson. For example, Meili Snow Mountains of which the highest peak, Kawagbo, is 6740 meters above sea level, gave human a lesson. In 1991, 17 mountaineers from China and Japan lost their lives while trying to reach the peak, a tragedy which is amongst the worst ever in history of mountain climbing in China. Up to now, there have been 10 climbing Meili mountains in the past 15 years. Among them: China and Japan jointly climbed four times, Japan alone climbed one time, the United States team climbed four times, and China alone climbed one time. They have all failed. The foolish man tries to replace the Almighty God and conquer everything with his limited knowledge and ability. The mob is always obsessed with the fact that humans and all living things are close relatives. Yes, according to some genetic researches, our DNA is 99.9% the same as the person next to us, and we're surprisingly similar to a lot of other living things. For example, chimpanzees, our closest living evolutionary relatives, are 96% genetically similar to humans; 90% of the genes in the Abyssinian domestic cat are similar to humans; mice are 85% similar to humans; domesticated cattle share about 80% of their genes with humans; while the egg-laying and feathered body are pretty different from a human's, about 60% of chicken genes have a human gene counterpart; even bananas surprisingly still share about 60% of the same DNA as humans! They only see similarities but selectively ignore differences. All of these stem from the homology of genes, and I am sure banana and I have a 100% different behavior pattern even though we share 60% of the same DNA. The mediocrity caused by capitalism attempts to unify all human beings and all non-human beings with Western thresholds and rules, as a result of which the world falls into chaos. Additionally, short-sighted people are so mediocre that they fear the disappearance of any species, as a result of which they begin to protect dogs, pandas, grizzlies, snakes, crocodiles, maybe Neanderthals and dinosaurs if they are alive. Throughout the 4.6 billion years of Earth's history, there have been five major mass extinction events that each wiped out an overwhelming majority of species living at the time. These five mass extinctions include the Ordovician Mass Extinction, Devonian Mass Extinction, Permian Mass Extinction, Triassic-Jurassic Mass Extinction, and Cretaceous-Tertiary (or the K-T) Mass Extinction. Permian Period is the largest of all known mass extinctions with a massive 96% of all species on Earth completely lost. Have you ever thought that one of the reasons for the existence of all present species we can see should be attributed to those extinct species? Evolution is like a pyramid that all present living species exist on the bones of other species. If those extinct species existed, there would no human beings as we are now. In fact, the mediocre fell into the broken window fallacy because they only see the species that have disappeared but don't see the species that would appear.

 

What is the root of the lawlessness of the Chinese people? As I mentioned before, which curve moves first is very important. Directional errors are fatal, and direction is more important than effort. China used to be in a Communist society for decades where there is no individual freedom, individual consciousness, social rules or judicial system, but only Juche Idea and General-will. Mao was a kind of religions. After Mao died in 1976, China entered a period of reform and opening up under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping from 1978. Reform and opening up is also known as the primary stage of socialism. What is the essence of reform and opening up? Capitalization reform. let me put it another way, from 1978 China began the capitalist privatization reform. China's chaos stems from the transformation from General-will's order to Self-interest's order. Before the reform and opening up, personal activities are totally prohibited, and you should do whatever the Party tells you to do and can't so anything the party didn't tell you to do. At that time, Chinese society was highly ordered, and all people were controlled by General-will. The government controlled everyone from birth to death, but the economic situation has returned to primitive civilization. After the reform and opening up, the greed of human nature was released. When previous equilibrium state has been broken but the next one has not yet been established, the situation is most chaotic at this time. In other words, people are the most chaotic and crazy in the change from one equilibrium to another. For example, there was no market in China 40 years ago, but after reform some smart people suddenly became nouveau riche by occupying market first because market was vacuum. Less smart people followed closely, but they don't know where the equilibrium state and equilibrium price are. Following a major environmental change there may be a brief period of evolutionary instability, but this brief period may be not short. After the disillusionment of altruism, Chinese began to enter the stage of fighting for their own interests but without any rules, so Chinese society has entered a chaotic situation where they only know the first principle of Game theory that people only care about their own payoffs and costs, but they don't know the second principle putting myself in my opponent's shoes. The intense transformation after the wrong direction must lead to more imbalances and mismatches. In this short 40-year transition from socialism to capitalism almost with Zero threshold, all desires of 1.4 billion Chinese people were suddenly released and exaggerated by capitalism, which were in serious conflict with the low scarce resources created by socialism. The low ability caused by socialism does not match the high desire released by capitalism. To be honest, religion is necessary because it is to curb endless desire and greed, especially in the fragile contractual civilization. Darwin once said the value set on animals even by the barbarians of Tierra del Fuego, by their killing and devouring their old women, in times of dearth, as of less value than their dogs. For the same reason, in the eyes of Chinese hegemonism, they view the value of other people is not higher than their dogs. Before the reform and opening up, Chinese could not move from one place to another freely, China was in an acquaintance society, so people achieve equilibrium in a small range. Additional, neighbors are from the same company, and people can still make a concession to each other due to multi shot game, so the contradiction between people has not deteriorated too much. Some range reached the stable point of the mixed strategy (Always Cooperate and Tit for Tat) where local people were simple, honest and mutually beneficial; some range reached the other stable point of Always Defect where local clusters of Always Defect individuals, far from prospering by each other's presence, do especially badly in each other's presence. Under the premise of isolation, both were in their own equilibrium, but after reform and open-up, Chinese people are free to flow from one place to another, so China is in stranger society now, due to the lack of law and zero-threshold of entry, Chinese start to unleash their own evil. Similarly, when the national mobility threshold was broken, some nations were invaded by another one. Even I can assert arbitrarily that from the whole world, all immigrants are intruders, cheaters, aggressors and fraudsters, while all the indigenous people are suckers. Now China has entered the age of strangers because of the emergence of commercial housing, people must choose to completely release evil in a one-shot game without any punishment or reward. There is an old saying in China: People, who have property would trade off in long-term. You can find a common phenomenon in city that the community, where external population stay, is particularly dirty and messy. The influx of outsiders has indeed broken the balance of the original ecology. Now, Chinese are in Always Defect stage where they only want to gain but without any pay, so I don't want to associate with Chinese because all are alike swindlers, because once an ESS is achieved it will stay: selection will penalize deviation from it. Fight terror with terror, and fight scoundrel with Gallagher style. Let it always be our maxim: Better alone than amongst traitors. I tell you a trick from my experience that “Never be entangled with people of low level.” I recommend you watch this TV of Shameless. To be honest, Chinese society is a big gutter where in a population that has already come to be dominated by Always Defect, no other strategy does better. Let's take a look back at Dawkins's comment in The Selfish Gene: 

Axelrod recognized that Tit for Tat is not strictly an ESS, and he therefore coined the phrase 'collectively stable strategy' to describe it. As in the case of true ESSs, it is possible for more than one strategy to be collectively stable at the same time. And again, it is a matter of luck which one comes to dominate a population. Always Defect is also stable, as well as Tit for Tat. In a population that has already come to be dominated by Always Defect, no other strategy does better. We can treat the system as bistable, with Always Defect being one of the stable points, Tit for Tat (or some mixture of mostly nice, retaliatory strategies) the other stable point. Whichever stable point comes to dominate the population first will tend to stay dominant…. But what does 'dominate' mean, in quantitative terms? How many Tit for Tats must there be in order for Tit for Tat to do better than Always Defect? That depends upon the detailed payoffs that the banker has agreed to shell out in this particular game. All we can say in general is that there is a critical frequency, a knife-edge. On one side of the knife-edge the critical frequency of Tit for Tat is exceeded, and selection will favour more and more Tit for Tats. On the other side of the knife-edge the critical frequency of Always Defect is exceeded, and selection will favour more and more Always Defects. We met the equivalent of this knife-edge, you will remember, in the story of the Grudgers and Cheats in Chapter 10…. It obviously matters, therefore, on which side of the knife-edge a population happens to start. And we need to know how it might happen that a population could occasionally cross from one side of the knife-edge to the other. Suppose we start with a population already sitting on the Always Defect side. The few Tit for Tat individuals don't meet each other often enough to be of mutual benefit. So natural selection pushes the population even further towards the Always Defect extreme. If only the population could just manage, by random drift, to get itself over the knife-edge, it could coast down the slope to the Tit for Tat side, and everyone would do much better at the banker's (or 'nature's') expense. But of course populations have no group will, no group intention or purpose. They cannot strive to leap the knife-edge. They will cross it only if the undirected forces of nature happen to lead them across…. How could this happen? One way to express the answer is that it might happen by 'chance'. But 'chance' is just a word expressing ignorance. It means 'determined by some as yet unknown, or unspecified, means'. We can do a little better than 'chance'. We can try to think of practical ways in which a minority of Tit for Tat individuals might happen to increase to the critical mass. This amounts to a quest for possible ways in which Tit for Tat individuals might happen to cluster together in sufficient numbers that they can all benefit at the banker's expense.

Apparently, Chinese whole society is in the stable point of Always Defect where niceness and forgivingness are both dominated strategy. In this climate, Tit for Tat can't win either. In China, now, honesty and responsibility have become a strictly dominated strategy. Here I am going to tell you about my personal experience. Once I accidentally broke a bottle of acetic acid in the corridor on the third floor. Because of the strong smell, many colleagues are complaining about who did it. I, as a new socialist citizen, I volunteered to clean the corridor and admit my mistake, and voluntarily buy an ice-cream for each of them on the third floor as compensation. Trouble has come. Some other colleagues from 4, 5, 6 and 7 floors who claimed to have smelled it demanded an ice-cream as a compensation too. There is an old saying in Chinese The Analects of Confucius: Inequality, rather than want, is the cause of trouble, which give me a lesson. I am a nice person with nice strategy instead of nasty strategy, but a nice strategy means I never the first to defect instead of never defect. Never defect is a strictly dominated strategy. In China, the cost of honesty and trustworthiness is too high. I can understand why people don't dare to help them up when old people fall down in China. It is because it could be a trap. I can also understand why Chinese insurance companies are rogues. It is because their opponents are rogues too. They will go bankrupt immediately if they are not scoundrels. One of the economics principles is people response to incentives. Honest strategies will soon be eliminated. I have no sympathy for the demolished residents either. Chinese don't know when enough is enough. Give him an inch and he will take a yard. Honest strategies will soon be eliminated instead of vice versa. Honesty tactics cannot be tolerated in a rogue environment. What causes this confusion? Evolved too fast. Enclosure movement, which was the starting point of Britain's determination of private ownership and the starting point of establishing property rights system, began in British in fifteenth Century and lasted for 300 centuries, but in China began in 1978 and lasts for 40 years; we took 40 years to complete the road of the capitalist countries walking in 300 years. To put it another way, Chinese have completed the leap of wealth from third world to first world in a single generation during 40 years, but they haven't made the change in habits and ideas. This “lag” leads to mismatches and disorder, which is equivalent to the overlap of multiple civilizations. The Chinese now have more freedom and material civilization than the British five hundred years ago, but they still did not establish the boundaries of freedom and clear proper Bourgeois desire rights, so Chinese social contradictions are more intense now than the British five hundred years ago, which stem from the mismatch of material civilization and spiritual civilization. Let me put it another way, some Chinese has completed the transition from third world to first world in a single generation during 40 years in material civilization, but some Chinese still keep various behaviors in lower civilizations. This “lag” leads to mismatches and disorder, which is equivalent to the overlap of multiple civilizations. The Chinese now have more freedom and material civilization than the British five hundred years ago, but they still did not establish the boundaries of freedom and clear proper Bourgeois desire rights, so Chinese social contradictions are more intense now than the British five hundred years ago, which stem from the mismatch of material civilization and spiritual civilization. Interpersonal conflict due to this lag becomes important relative to interpersonal cooperation in China. This overlap has caused the Chinese people to fail to reach consensus on many issues, such as dogs. It is difficult even to imagine a relationship when such mutual agreement is wholly absent.

On freedom

The struggle between Freedom and Limit is the most conspicuous feature in the history of human beings. Individual freedom cannot be unbounded because unbounded freedom has a serious negative externality in contract civilization which are reciprocal. It is so evident that people with the plague virus are not free to walk around because this freedom has a serious negative externality. Man's universal thirst for freedom is a fact of history, but do they really care about the so-called freedom? In a strictly personalized sense, any person's ideal situation is one that allows him full freedom of action and inhibits the behavior of others so as to force adherence to his own desires. That is to say, each person seeks mastery over a world of slaves, so one that man can recognize as being within the realm of plausibility, the anarchistic regime of free men, each of whom respects the rights of others, becomes the utopian dream. Any consumer wants free products and services, but this is impossible to achieve because the key problem is who will sell them for free. Everyone tends to sacrifice others for his own benefit, and this reality must be squarely faced. In the process of pursuing the maximization of personal interests, which is economically rational for the individual, everyone tend to create a “public bad” instead of “public good.” Absolute freedom is advocated by the devil only who with sinister intentions can take advantage of these ignorant and short-sighted people because the collective power is enormous, especially in a violent civilization. The common ground between people from Socialism and Capitalism is that people are both selfish, but the difference between them is that people from Socialism require others to be selfless while people from Capitalism allow others to be selfish. Social strife might arise in paradise. As John Stuart Mill said in his work of On Liberty, “In many cases, an individual, in pursuing a legitimate object, necessarily and therefore legitimately causes pain or loss to others, or intercepts a good which they had a reasonable hope of obtaining. Such oppositions of interest between individuals often arise from bad social institutions, but are unavoidable while those institutions last; and some would be unavoidable under any institutions. Whoever succeeds in an overcrowded profession, or in a competitive examination; whoever is preferred to another in any contest for an object which both desire, reaps benefit from the loss of others, from their wasted exertion and their disappointment.” Apparently，conflicts of interest are universal and unavoidable. In any world that we can imagine, potential interpersonal conflict will be present, and, hence, we need rules and orders to limit unbounded freedom. Total absence of conflict would seem to be possible only in a setting where individuals are wholly isolated one from another, or in a social setting where no goods are scarce and where all persons agree on the precise set of behavioral norms to be adopted and followed by everyone. In a self-sufficient agricultural civilization with backwardness of transportation, there is not much intersection between people, so social rules and orders seem unimportant, but in the modern trading civilization with convenient transportation, so social rules and orders are extremely important. As resources become less scarce, the economic conflict becomes less acute; as the population density increases, potential interpersonal conflict may have increased substantially. What is the limit of freedom? No-harm principle. As John Stuart Mill said, “The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people.” Our objective should preserve the maximum degree of freedom for each individual separately that is compatible with one man's freedom not interfering with other's freedom. In my words, when the results of your actions don't have negative externalities, or in other words when you bear the full cost of your actions, you have the freedom to do it. Otherwise you must be deprived of this freedom because you would pass the costs on to others. The greatest mistake of our human beings is to pursue the nonexistent absolute freedom. 

As a compromise, people want freedom from constraints, while at the same time they gradually recognize the necessity of order. In order to resolve the conflict and mutual hurting to each other, people begin to call for order. Order is a public good; disorder is a public bad. In a private, personal utility sense, any limits on individual behavior are “bads.” But rational persons accept such limits in exchange or trade for the “goods” which law-abiding on the part of others represents. The most serious problem of social order and progress is the problem of having the rules obeyed. Precepts for living together are not going to be handed down from on high. We start from where we are, and not from some idealized world peopled by beings with a different history and with utopian institutions. No anarchistic order can survive in the strict sense of the term because those people who are the losers of the contract civilization must choose to resort to violent civilization in order to maximizing their payoffs. Government is indispensable in contract civilization aiming at preventing degeneration. As John Stuart Mill said, “The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” Of course, the freedom of government should also be limited by a system of checks and balances because government is essential both as a forum for determining the “rules of the game” and as an umpire to interpret and enforce the rules decided on. Otherwise, any government try his best to rationalize almost every conceivable intervention. The scope of government must be limited. Its major function must be to protect our freedom both from the enemies outside our gates and from our fellow-citizens: to preserve law and order, to enforce private contracts, to foster competitive markets. Then, how the government protect contractual civilization, or how the government resolve such conflicts among the freedoms of different individuals? ①Clear property rights; ②Contract transaction. 

An important prerequisite for the market economy to work is an economy-wide respect for property rights. Property rights refer to the ability of people to exercise authority over the resources they own. Sometimes, we can regard property right as an initial assignment, basically inherited from ancestors. The most classic example is the competition of countries for the ownership of land resources. It is taken for granted that that country who owns this land has all the resources on the land as an initial assignment without any costs, and other countries can only take possession of their resources through transactions. The competition for initial assignment is the most intense, such as Kuril Islands dispute between Japan and Russia, Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan and the Falkland Islands dispute between Britain and Argentina. All the vested interests will do everything to protect the immediate vested interests, while the former vested interests will do everything to restore the past interests, while the losers always think to benefit from the reshuffle. Here I give you a personal experience. I occasionally take part in a day tour in the suburbs, and the bus pick up people from south to north, I must be the last to get on the bus because I live in the north of the city, and as a result, there is no good seat for me. As not a vested interest, I advocate to grab seats again every time I get off the bus and get on again, and as vested interests, those people who had already occupied good seats in the morning want to keep their good seats all day, and advocate to take the original seat all day for the convenience of counting people. Which side is just? Neither. Everyone is fighting for their own interests. No matter what kind of distribution principles is adopted, there will be winners and losers. Losers always want to change their initial position by reshuffling, while winners always want to maintain the existing order to protect their initial position. The essence of shuffling is to redistribute the initial assignments. When the contract civilization cannot reach an agreement, it must resort to violent civilization to divide the ownership. The essence of proletarian violent revolution is to seize the initial wealth by violence. When they become property owners, they must prohibit the new proletarian violent revolution. I want to introduce an old concept to you: Coase theorem which was put forth by Ronald Coase who received the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1991. The theorem states three points: First, externalities are reciprocal; second, externalities persist only if transactions costs are high; finally, if transactions costs are low, market processes will lead to the same efficient outcomes, irrespective of the assignment of property rights. If trade in an externality is possible and there are sufficiently low transaction costs, bargaining will lead to a Pareto efficient outcome regardless of the initial allocation of property. Coase's main point, clarified in his article “The Problem of Social Cost,” published in 1960 and cited when he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1991, was that transaction costs, however, could not be neglected, and therefore, the initial allocation of property rights often mattered. I can't agree with him more. Here, I would like to extend this Coase theorem. Under a perfect contractual society, in the absence of transaction costs, both would strike a mutually advantageous deal. It would not matter which one had the initial right to the property; eventually, the right to the one would end up with the party that was able to put it to the most highly valued use. From the macro level of society, social efficiency has not changed, but (there is a big but here.) the initial allocation of property rights often mattered because initial allocation determines whether you are a seller or a buyer. After the property rights are determined, the transaction will take place, such as the United States bought Alaska from Russia in 1867. A mining company will not make the effort to mine iron ore if it expects the ore to be stolen. The company mines the ore only if it is confident that it will benefit from the ore's subsequent sale. For this reason, courts serve an important role in a market economy: They enforce property rights. Through the criminal justice system, the courts discourage direct theft. In addition, through the civil justice system, the courts ensure that buyers and sellers live up to their contracts. There are many ambiguities, uncertainties, and conflicting sets of expectations about individual spheres of allowable actions in China legal structure, so the first step in the legalization of China is aimed at the resolution of such ambiguities and conflicts, namely, clarity of property rights. Individuals find themselves in conflict over the use of scarce resources, with results that are desired by no one because there is no agreed-on and enforced set of rights. Anarchy necessarily fails when there exists no “natural” or mutually acceptable dividing lines among spheres of personal individual interest. The main reason of the interventions of government is because of ambiguities in the definition of individual rights. For example: Single footbridge, given by James M. Buchanan in the book of The Limits of Liberty: Between Anarchy and Leviathan. Robin Hood and Little John meet squarely in the center of the one-man footbridge. What “natural” rule is there to determine who shall be entitled to proceed and who shall withdraw? This can serve as an illustration for the multifarious set of interactions where conflict rather than implicit agreement seems characteristic if without an order. The logical foundation of property rights lies precisely in this universal need for boundaries between “mine and yours.” Escape from the violent civilization requires an explicit definition of the rights of persons to do things. The genuinely anarchistic world becomes a maze of footbridges, and conflict rather than universalized cooperation is its central feature. A single footbridge exists; either Robin Hood or Little John must be granted some right of priority in its usage. Both men cannot simultaneously possess such a right, which would, of course, be equivalent to the abolition of all rights, from which the Hobbesian conflict emerges once again. A well-defined set of individual rights is the cornerstone of contract civilization. “Equal freedom,” as a norm or rule for social intercourse, has little or no meaning until and unless individuals are first identified in terms of acknowledged limits to behavior. Persons are defined by the rights which they possess and are acknowledged by others to possess. If Robin Hood and Little John know, and in advance, which one has the “right” to cross the bridge when potential conflict emerges, and, furthermore, if they know that this “right” will be effectively enforced, they can go about their ordinary business of life without detailed supervision and control. What, then, is the rightful limit to the sovereignty of the individual over himself? Those people in developed countries tend to take property rights for granted, and those living in less developed countries understand gradually that a lack of property rights can be a major problem. China's chaos stem from the lack of clear property rights. For example, lots of Chinese don't have concept of the right-of-way which is the right that people have to use the roads, so they still follow the law of the jungle in traffic. In many countries, the system of justice does not work well. Contracts are hard to enforce, and fraud often goes unpunished. In more extreme cases, the government not only fails to enforce property rights but actually infringes upon them. Who owns the children's property rights? If the father owns the property, he has the right to dispose of his child in any way he wants. Thus, economic prosperity depends in part on political prosperity. When the political system changed (The Disintegration of Patriarchy), the father lost the ownership of his daughter, so it is natural for him to refuse to raise a girl. The essence of the collapse of patriarchy is that the government infringes on the property rights of the father to his daughter. Who owns the pets' property rights? If I own the property, I have the right to dispose of my pet in any way I like, including beating my horse, shooting my dogs and killing my pigs. No one else has the right to interfere. In that period, did Chinese government have the right to exercise family planning for citizens? Is reproduction a private right? It depends on who bears the growth costs of this child. It is not private right when the taxpayers bear the costs, and it is private right when an individual bear the costs as same non-human animals which have the right to have many babies they want. Before social pension, children were at one time the major means whereby people provided for their own old age, so father had ownership of children. Ambiguity of property rights is a common problem in socialist countries where there was no private property and which all property belongs to, and society is maintained by lies and morality. In my eyes, morality and lies are equivalent. In China, old people often complain that young people do not give up their seat on buses. In my opinion, it is no less than moral kidnapping. The ambiguity of behavior boundary is the inevitable result of moral governance which must lead rogues everywhere because morality is little more than a fig leaf for rogues. Once individual rights are acknowledged, contractual negotiations become possible. With such defined limits, regardless of the sources of their derivation, an individual is clearly an entity distinct from his fellows. Equipped with this set of rights, informed about them, and similarly informed about the rights held by others, the individual is in a position to initiate agreements with other persons, to negotiate trades, or, in more general terms, to behave as a free man in a society of men. If little John is given ownership rights in the footbridge, Robin Hood can use the facility only after obtaining Little John's permission through trade or otherwise. Do I have the property right of my own vagina and uterus? If I have, I have the right to rent them to anyone. If I haven't, please tell me who has the property right of my vagina and uterus? If the limits to individual behavior are well defined, voluntary social interaction can proceed in an orderly fashion under any structure. Once the limits of each person's rights are defined by agreement, economic interchange becomes almost the archetype of ordered anarchy. Individuals can deal with one another through wholly voluntary behavior without coercion or threat. Interpersonal dealings can take place under any agreed-on assignment. Apparently, the definition and assignment of individual rights are ahead of or prior to exchange. The basic requisite is the maintenance of law and order to prevent physical coercion of one individual by another and to enforce contracts voluntarily entered into, thus giving substance to "private". So long as effective freedom of exchange is maintained, the central feature of the market organization of economic activity is that it prevents one person from interfering with another in respect of most of his activities. The consumer is protected from coercion by the seller because of the presence of other sellers with whom he can deal. The seller is protected from coercion by the consumer because of other consumers to whom he can sell. The employee is protected from coercion by the employer because of other employers for whom he can work, and so on. And the market does this impersonally and without centralized authority. When contractual civilization cannot dominate society, society will inevitably degenerate back to violent civilization because contradictions are always to be solved. This is the basic reason why Chinese people often fight to each other. 

Whether clear property rights or contractual transactions belongs to the category of contract civilization, and what if people do not obey these orders? All theories of economics are based on the perfect trading model, what if people resort to violent civilization? Rationality precepts, strictly interpreted, suggest efforts toward maximizing “law-abiding”' by others and toward minimizing “law-abiding” by the party in question. But for each person, there will be an advantage in breaking the law, in failing to respect the behavioral limits laid down in the contract. The evil consequences of his acts do not then fall on himself, but on others; and society, as the protector of all its members, must retaliate on him; must inflict pain on him for the express purpose of punishment, and must take care that it be sufficiently severe. The necessity for law enforcement must be squarely faced, regardless of our romantic yearnings for an imaginary paradise. As John Stuart Mill said, “The maxims are, first, that the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as these concerns the interests of no person but himself. Advice, instruction, persuasion, and avoidance by other people if thought necessary by them for their own good, are the only measures by which society can justifiably express its dislike or disapprobation of his conduct. Secondly, that for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable, and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishment, if society is of opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its protection.” In classical electromagnetism, there is a concept called magnetization. All materials are made up of magnetic domains. In an unmagnetized object, all of the magnetic domains point in different directions. We can call it disordered state. When a material is placed in a strong magnetic field, these dipoles become aligned in a single direction, the material exhibits magnetic properties. We can call it ordered state. In the absence of an external magnetic field or electric field, magnetic domains can't change from disorder to order. Magnetization is a process from disorder to order. Notice here, some substances demagnetized gradually after they leave the magnetic field and magnetic domains return back to disorder from order, which is called demagnetization. How to keep order for a long time? Permanence of an external magnetic field or electric field is necessary. We can call this external magnetic field or electric field punishment in sociology. The principal objects which human punishments have in view are undoubtedly restraint and example. With respect to what is said of the necessity of protecting society from the bad example set to others by the vicious or the self-indulgent; it is true that bad example may have a pernicious effect, especially the example of doing wrong to others with impunity to the wrong-doer. Almost any person will “voluntarily” comply with dictated patterns of behavior if he knows that departure from these patterns will be punished with sufficient certainty and severity. Enforcement is essential, but the unwillingness of government to punish those who violate it, and to do so effectively, must portend erosion and ultimate destruction of the order that we observe. Is it ironic that contract civilization needs to be guarded by violent machines all the time? Not everyone can benefit from contractual civilization, so the necessity for an enforcing agent arises if people want to maintain contractual civilization. The enforcing role for the state involves the protection of individual rights to do things and carrying out of valid contracts. To make any one answerable for doing evil to others is the rule. Based on the principle of Tit for Tat, despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians. According to game theory, if you want to change a person's choice, you have to change his payoffs. Severe law is such a negative feedback to change people's bad behavior. If you should happen to do something that is followed by one of the nasty things, don't do it again, but on the other hand repeat anything that is followed by one of the nice things.' You can't do whatever you want to do because you may not have the resources to afford it. The government should play the role of adjudication and enforcing agent role well, and well-defined rights require enforcement; violations must be policed and violators punished even according to the rules and orders. Enforcement has two components. First, violations must be discovered and violators identified. Second, punishment must be imposed on violators. In the absence of effective enforcement, external or internal, persons are always motivated to violate the standards laid down. From this base, individuals are free to negotiate any and all mutually beneficial exchanges among themselves, and agreed-on terms will be effectively enforced by the agency. China has all kinds of laws, but they cannot be effectively enforced. Because of the incompetence, inept and inaction of public power, the law cannot punish numerous offenders, as a result, rules and orders are in vain. Apprehension rates and severity of punishment are two very important factors in striking a balance. Only the fear of punishment can stop people from doing evil. Inept law enforcers only care about what to be done to minimize their trouble, instead of executing their duties according to the laws. In organic chemical reactions, there are similar rules to follow. The potential outcome of a reaction is usually influenced by two factors: the relative stability of the products (i.e. thermodynamic factors) and the rate of product formation (i.e. kinetic factors). Kinetic control will lead to a faster reaction since it has a lower energy transition state, and therefore a lower activation barrier. Thermodynamic control will lead to a slower reaction since it has a higher energy transition state, and therefore a higher activation barrier. As a result, the product can be obtained quickly by kinetic control but unstable; while the product can be obtained slowly by thermodynamic control but stable. Needless to say, activation energy, as a cost, falls on law enforcers, who must choose kinetic reaction to minimize their own costs. As a result, society becomes an unstable product. What will happen? Lynching is rampant. For example, in recent years, the events of killing dogs by poisons have occurred frequently in China. Why is that? This result met my expectations because the incompetence and omission of public power must only lead to the spread of lynching because this is not a balanced state without punishment for defection. Most of the civil offences now committed, are committed in consequence of the inefficiency of our judicial system; “For sparing justice feeds iniquity.” It is the difficulty that he knows there will be in convicting him which tempts the knave to behave knavishly. When public power does not act, lynching is a supplement. The emergence of isoniazid has become such a supplement. Only when costs are transferred back to them will they cease the infringement. Don't forget the strategy of “Tit for tat” is not nasty but nice strategy. If my neighbor operates his stereo loudly in the wee hours, and does this repeatedly, I should be prompted to try deliberately to annoy him with my oscillator. They deserved that. Free entry and exit in a competitive market can be regarded as a kind of retaliations, which is a powerful force shaping the long-run equilibrium. The threat of retaliation must always be there. There is no doubt that the government will prevent lynching because the escalation of contradictions will affect the rule of the authorities, so the authorities must intervene in contradictions not from the perspective of equilibrium but from the perspective of which side is more beneficial to themselves or which side is more harmful to themselves. As the saying goes, it's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease, so in China, proletarian scoundrels always the winners. Generally speaking, under this system, self-defense is strictly prohibited, as a result of which the whole society falls into a dilemma of the inaction of public power and the prohibition of self-defense. Here I give two ridiculous news in China. A widely viewed traffic cam video shows what happened the night of August 27, 2018 in the Chinese city of Kunshan, west of Shanghai. Yu, a 41-year-old electrician, was waiting at a stoplight on his e-bike when 36-year-old Liu, driving a BMW, approached from behind. Liu swerved toward Yu, who was in a dedicated bike lane, and nearly hit him. The two sides quarreled before Liu pushed and kicked Yu. Liu retrieved a 59-centimeter-long knife from the car later and slashed it at Yu several times. Suddenly a dramatic scene happened. Due to drunkenness, the knife flew out of his hand and fell to the ground. Yu got to it first and turned it on Liu, stabbing him at least five times. Liu was brought to a hospital but later died of his wounds, which included ruptured veins and intestines. By the way, Liu, covered with tattoos, has been in jail four times, and is a member of criminal syndicate. At first, the police detained Yu for intentional homicide. The video went viral on Chinese social media, sparking a debate on whether justifiable self-defense or excessive self-defense. Finally, under the great pressure of public opinion, police and prosecutors said that the man's behavior constitutes justifiable self-defense and should be exempted from criminal responsibility. Legal experts said it could be considered a milestone case in China as in the past, such cases were usually considered as excessive self-defense in which those who fought back should bear criminal punishment. Frankly speaking, Yu should thank the Internet and the support of netizens who reversed events successfully, otherwise he will become a victim. Similarly, absurd farce is still on in China again and again. On June 1 2020, Hu, 18, argued with Lei, 54, in a shopping mall after Lei acted indecently toward a female friend, 17. Lei denied misbehaving, and the three went to the mall's monitoring room to watch surveillance video. While watching the video, Lei fled to a mall parking lot and Hu ran after him. Hu tried to kick Lei two times but failed to connect. A third attempt succeeded, fracturing Lei's right leg and causing him to fall to the ground. By the way, shopping mall video showed that Lei molested women on that day more than once. Later, local police decided to criminally detain Hu, 18, on suspicion of intentional injury. With the exposure of the video and the denouncement of netizens, police cancelled the criminal detention of the man, surnamed Hu, and it would now reinvestigate the case. By the way, private detectives are also illegal for the same reason. Such a country which confuse right and wrong! It's not hard to imagine why China's emerging middle class wants to emigrate abroad because the immigration is the only way for them to get rid of the proletarian scoundrels and inept government. This is a kind of Nimby(not in my backyard), which means avoiding not only those incompetent people but also those inept governments. It is a very singular country in which every member of this country wishes to get out of the country ... as soon as he can, and to whose interest, the day after he has left it and carried his whole fortune with him, it is perfectly indifferent though the whole country as swallowed up by an earthquake. This is the true picture of China at present. The broken windows theory is a criminological theory states that visible signs of disorder and misbehavior in an environment encourage further disorder and misbehavior, leading to serious crimes. The principle was developed to explain the decay of neighborhoods, but it is often applied to work and educational environments. The broken windows theory argues that no matter how rich or poor a neighborhood, one broken window would soon lead to many more windows being broken: “One unrepaired broken window is a signal that no one cares, and so breaking more windows costs nothing.” Disorder increases levels of fear among citizens, which leads them to withdraw from the community and decrease participation in informal social control. Who created the broken windows theory? Inactive law enforcement agencies. What would happen next? These so-called crimes will also be professionalized. For example, if my legitimate rights have been violated, but authorities choose to ignore, what is best counter-strategy? Here are two cases. One is my opportunity cost is very small and I choose to poison the stray dogs by myself; the other is my opportunity cost is big and I choose to hire someone who has very low opportunity to poison the stray dogs. Deal can make both better off, right? In my eyes, they are all Spiderman who maintain the balance because they did the work for free. Some Chinese leader put forward the slogan like “Harmonious Society” which is fundamentally wrong because the Western advanced civilization is the result of draconian laws instead of harmonious society. The word “harmony” was not originated by Chinese leader, but by Robert Owen who is one of the most influential early 19^th-century advocates of utopian socialism. Owen had envisioned a utopia sprung full-blown into the world, but it did not and could not succeed. The nature of “Harmonious Society” is to compromise with barbarians by passing the costs on to other victims. You can't be generous at expense of others. Due to being threatened by the violence of the majority, the government force the general taxpayer to subsidize the bad risks and to defray the losses. The incompetence of the regulators inevitably leads to social chaos, regardless of the regulated. Based on my experience, when I was in England YHA, I can see the sign like “Quiet hours 10pm to 8am otherwise you get kicked out,” and almost all customers, regardless while, yellow or black, would keep quiet between 10pm to 8am; but the situation is quite different when I was in Thailand YHA, and the white women, maybe from Australia, made a lot of noise during 12am. In short, what is more harmful is the dictator's inaction and abuse of power, not the dictatorship itself. 

The lynching caused by the inept government's inaction happens not only in developing countries, such as China, but also in so-called developed countries. Here I give a very famous example. Dieter Krombach was found guilty by a French court for unintentionally killing Kalinka Bamberski in Bavaria in 1982, which was one of the most bizarre cross-border judicial disputes in European legal history. The story roughly goes like this. It was in 1982 that Krombach tried to rape 14-year-old Kalinka Bamberski and then killed her with an injection of lethal drugs. But a German court ruled in 1987 that there was insufficient evidence to charge Krombach, and extradition to France was refused. Despite this, a French court convicted him in absentia in 1995, before the conviction was annulled on procedural grounds. However, Andre Bamberski, Kalinka's 74-year-old natural father, never gave up the struggle to bring to justice a doctor he always believed was a sexual deviant. In 2009 he paid professional Russian kidnappers £18,000 to beat up Krombach, bind and gag him, put him in the boot of a car, and then drive him to France. There was quite a bit of a dispute between France and Germany as to whether Krombach should be sent back home, and they also demanded that Bamberski be extradited to be charged with the kidnapping. European Court of Human Rights, what's more, rejected the results of French trial and condemned France. France in the end refused, Bamberski was release on bail, and Krombach was sentenced to 15 years in prison for “deliberate violence leading to involuntary death” in the Kalinka case. In the end Bamberski got a 1-year suspended prison sentence for his role in Krombach’s abduction, but he also gained peace of mind and the satisfaction that justice had finally been done for his daughter. All because he refused to let the case be swept under the carpet and did what no one else would. By comparison, Kirsty Jones is not so lucky. In August of 2000, 23 year-old Kirsty Jones, who enjoyed a gap year after graduating from Liverpool University, was raped and strangled in Chiang Mai. During the early hours of August 10, after enjoying an evening with friends, Kirsty was attacked and murdered in her room. Her body was discovered the next morning, sparking an investigation that would span 20 years and two continents. Despite several arrests, no-one was ever charged for Kirsty’s murder. In 2001 British Police successfully lobbied to get the case re-opened by the Thai Attorney General after it was closed due to insufficient evidence to mount a successful prosecution. British Officers travelled to Thailand several times in the years that followed to discuss the investigation, hold press conferences and bring exhibits from the case back to the UK for detailed forensic examination. Kristy’s mother even has offered a £10,000 reward for leads to capture her daughter's killer. Unfortunately no-one has ever been prosecuted for Kirsty’s murder and the Thai Department of Specialist Investigations has now closed the case, meaning a permanent end to the investigation. This Monday (August 10, 2020) the Thai 20-year Statute of Limitations in this case expires, and no-one has ever been brought to justice. The search for justice for murdered Welsh backpacker Kirsty Jones is over after the case was finally closed on the 20th anniversary of her death. Similarly, a Korean film named Conference of murder (내가 살인범이다,2012) told us how incompetent the law is. We like to think that the laws of society will protect us, and that those who do bad things will be punished for it. We like to think that the system is working in our favor and that we will be protected and looked after, that those who have wronged us will face justice and get what is coming to them, and in most cases, this is perhaps true. Yet, there are some people who have been forced to take matters into their own hands, and take care of the business when they encounter inept or corrupt authorities. Only in this way, the equilibrium state can be struck. 

Apparently, those people who resort to violent civilization or do not follow the rules, should be deprived of their freedom because they are barbarians. Then, who can't have freedom either, or who can't have property rights and free trading rights either, or what kind of people should be deprived of their freedom even under the contract civilization? Freedom is a tenable objective only for responsible individuals. We do not believe in freedom for madmen or children. Underlying most arguments against the freedom is a lack of belief in freedom itself. The necessity of drawing a line between responsible individuals and others is inescapable, yet it means that there is an essential ambiguity in our ultimate objective of freedom. Paternalism is inescapable for those whom we designate as not responsible. For them, compulsory means should be used instead of voluntary means. To be honest, almost all the chaos in contract civilization stems from the fact that some people have the freedom they should not have. In short, those people who are considered ignorant, incompetent, inferior or fool should be deprived of their freedom because they are lack of the intellect and judgment of mankind which ought to be cultivated at expense of time. They need guardians, so they should be under paternalism which is defined as the exercise of power over an individual and an interference with an individual's free will. I also agree with paternalism because immature people can interfere with the market economy by passing on the costs to others. I oppose laissez-faire because the contract civilization can only guarantee the elimination of violence but cannot guarantee the elimination of deception or fraud. Freedom belongs to those people who can use observation to see, reasoning and judgment to foresee, activity to gather materials for decision, discrimination to decide, and when he has decided, firmness and self-control to hold to his deliberate decision. Those who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others, must be protected against their own actions as well as against external injury. For the same reason, we may leave out of consideration those backward states of society in which the race itself may be considered as in its nonage because they are just giant infant. For some examples. Children can't have freedom because they are ignorant and incompetent. Even in democratic countries, voting qualifications are set at the age of 18 or older. Obviously, everyone admits that children don't have enough judgment, so the protection against themselves is necessary. I once saw such a news that a 14-year-old Australian boy named Patrick Mitchell has changed his mind two years after he began gender transition into a woman with female hormones at age 12. How unreliable children are! According to recent reports on Chinese media, a young man, now 25, sold his left kidney in China when he was just 17 years old. The teenager wanted an iPhone and iPad desperately in order to prove to his classmates that he was trendy, but his cash-strapped parents could not afford them. He immediately bought an iPhone 4 and an iPad 2 after being paid £2,528, but he is now disabled, bedbound and needing constant care. If protection against themselves is confessedly due to children and persons under age, is not society equally bound to afford it to persons of mature years who are equally incapable of self-government? Children need guardians, and so do women and Chinese. Under patriarchy, fathers are their guardians. The vast majority of women can't have freedom because they are still ignorant and credulous, and they have neither knowledge nor identity to resolve the gender conflict. They made a directional error, and can't recognize P-V model as an infringement of their legitimate liberty. The biggest stupidity of women is to put cost items in the income category, so they should be protected under the Patriarchy because they interfere with normal market economic order by offering free sex services. Ignorant women cannot distinguish the good from the bad; hence it is needful that the choice should be made for them. Some anti-patriarchal people, who are actually the beneficiaries of women's abuse of freedom, argue that women have human rights to dispose of their bodies, and as long as the losers by the contract do not invoke assistance from other communities, other people have no right to interfere. Is father entitled to use coercion to prevent daughters from providing free sex-services? The answer is yes because he bears the production costs of the uterus and vagina instead of girls themselves. I have already observed that, owing to the absence of property right, liberty is often granted where it should be withheld, as well as withheld where it should be granted. The authorities do not limit incompetence and abuse of power. Allowing the ignorance and incompetence women to exercise so free power in whatever way they want would be dangerous. There are also many female fools in the West. The most classic example in the West is Jihadi bride Shamima Begum who is a British-born woman who left the UK in February 2015, aged 15, to join the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Syria, who recently says in 2019 she is 'in a really bad way' in Syrian camp and wants 'to return home' because her mental health is suffering and she now “hates” the terror group after the death of her three babies.  Unfortunately, the Home Secretary responded bluntly to her plea, saying: “No way, no way.” I support the British government's decision because women have always been so ignorant and foolish that they have always been exploited for free. Ignorant women cannot bear the consequences of abuse of freedom. Those ignorant who possess the freedom they should not possess, are just being used by those vicious in order to achieve the purpose of profitability. You must have seen such a famous news from China: Dramatic video footage captures the middle-aged woman flouting the warnings by getting out of the car, and she was killed instantly after she followed the younger woman out of the car at the Badaling Wildlife World, near the Great Wall of China. Both had ignored repeated warnings to stay inside the vehicle, according to local media. They don't deserve any sympathy because it's their choice, they asked for trouble and had it coming. There's always news like this: A woman in the countryside signed a guarantee and was eventually sentenced by the court to repay 2 million Yuan. She had no idea what guarantees meant. To be honest, I fear men in violent civilization and women in contract civilization. The vast majority of Chinese can't have freedom because they have the incompetence of the proletariat (Lower orbit) but the desire of the bourgeoisie (Higher electronics). Like I said before, lower orbit and higher electronics are incompatible, and the result must be chaos. Mao Zedong was right raising dog is indeed a bourgeois pastime because any pastime has a price which the Chinese are unable or unwilling to pay. You know, the most terrible thing is not that the bourgeoisie raise dogs, but that the proletariat raise dogs. Poverty and evil are twins. It is Chinese should be deprived of the freedom of raising pets because they are incompetent and impose the costs to the neighbors. Einstein once described the Chinese as “industrious, filthy, obtuse people.” He was right. These dogs and their owners are not only irreligious, but unchaste, indecent, gross, disgusting. According to the definition of American psychiatric association, they have the characteristics of antisocial personality disorder. Antisocial personality disorder signs and symptoms may include: a pattern of disregarding or violating the rights of others; disregard for right and wrong; arrogance, a sense of superiority and being extremely opinionated; hostility, significant irritability, agitation, aggression or violence; failure to consider the negative consequences of behavior or learn from them; being consistently irresponsible and repeatedly failing to fulfill work or financial obligations; destruction of property; deceitfulness; serious violation of rules. To be honest, most of Chinese have these symptoms. Chinese freedom degenerates into license and irresponsibility, should be governed because they would impose the negative externalities to others by abusing the freedom. Noise and flash are the direct reasons for O'Sullivan's unwillingness to play snooker in China. The retarded also like to shine a laser pen into the eyes of others. One news goes that, some hikers and adventurers are trapped illegally crossing unmanned areas, and the government had to waste taxpayers' money to search and rescue. Their behavior has serious negative externalities, so they do not deserve this freedom. There is another way to call them: Giant infant who should be avowedly treated as children or savages, and placed under an education of restraint, to fit them for future admission to the privileges of freedom. As the Scots say: The father buys, the son builds, the grandchild sells and his son begs. Late Hong Kong actress Lydia Shum has previously reached an agreement with her daughter, Joyce Cheng, not to use her 60-million-dollar inheritance before Cheng turns 35. The rich set up trust fund to prevent their children from squandering their heritage because they know the essence of capitalism is cheating. There is a 10% limit on the rise and fall of Chinese stocks, but western stock markets have no such restrictions. Why? Because the Chinese people are irrational, irrational people should be restricted freedom. The Chinese think 10% limit is restricting their freedom, on the contrary, this restriction is protecting them. On January 17, 2019, a stock code 02768 fell 80% in the Hong Kong stock market, and on the next day, the stock rose 60%. I dare not imagine how many people will be ruined overnight without this 10% limit. People in different levels should enjoy different freedoms. For example, when I travelled in Canada, I saw a lot of casino, in Niagara Falls and Notre Dame island in Montreal. This is because Canadians can control the freedom of gambling, but Chinese don't deserve this freedom because they can't face gambling rationally. The essence of lottery is gambling. It aims to help the poor. As a result, all lottery tickets in China are bought by the poor. Similarly, according to The Cannabis Act, cannabis has been legalized. To buy, possess or use cannabis and cannabis products, you must be of legal age 18 older. Cannabis should be banned in China because Chinese with low ability will cause more negative externalities after smoking cannabis. The Opium Wars arose from China’s attempts to suppress the opium trade, which had led to widespread addiction in China and was causing serious social and economic disruption there. British traders were the primary source of the drug in China. In spring 1839 the Chinese government confiscated and destroyed more than 20,000 chests of opium—some 1,400 tons of the drug—that were warehoused at Canton (Guangzhou) by British merchants. Although drug trafficking does not violate the civilization of trade, it is still prohibited in many countries so far. For example, under Singapore law, trafficking more than 15 grams of heroin brings a mandatory death sentence. Why? The vast majority of people do not have the ability to master this freedom. Similarly, Chinese people do not have the ability to control the freedom of drugs either. To be honest, 20 years ago, I would have taken drugs if drugs were legalized in my youth, but I don't take drugs now even if they're legal. The thing is many Chinese people can't reach my level. The elderly in China should not be free either. You can often see news like this: Some old people were deceived of all their savings by cheaters because of the greed for a kilogram of free rice. What a money-hungry public this must have been to swallow such a barefaced fraud! The outright fraud can be packaged as “enterprise”; the gilded extravagances of the age as colorless “consumption.” Indeed, the world was so scrubbed as to be unrecognizable. China is now full of Ponzi schemes because the mentality of the Chinese people now is the same as that of the Americans in the 1920s, and irrational people are tempted by interests to forget the most basic common sense. Anyone who has rich investment experience and financial knowledge will never take a second glance at a project which promises to recover 50% interest within three months. Like I said before, there is no short-cut in evolution. Ignorance doesn't mean innocent. The contract civilization dominated by capitalism can only guarantee to sell you what you like, but not what is really useful to you, because that is question you should judge. Although those cheaters are hateful, the old are not only greedy but also incompetent. Advances in technology have given cheaters more convenient, and as a result, these fools are in a more dangerous position. The Chinese always try to get something for free that doesn't belong to them, so they are always short-sighted and can only see the gains and losses in short-run but can't see them in long-run. In the absence of estimation of subsequent costs, they rushed to buy high-rise apartments and cars, raise dogs and have babies and so on and so forth. After they have used cost-benefit analysis rationally, they will withdraw from the market because the cost is too high and the benefit is too low. It turns out that they can't afford the elevator fee, parking fee, vaccine fee and growth costs because they are short-sighted and didn't take the subsequent cost of holding into account. It still remains unrecognized, that to bring a child into existence without a fair prospect of being able, not only to provide food for its body, but instruction and training for its mind, is a crime, both against the unfortunate offspring and against society. In recent years, with the development of the Internet, net loans are also overwhelming overnight in China. I have a neutral attitude towards the problem of net loans as same as raising dogs. Unfortunately, the Chinese people cannot control such a simple contract civilization product. A lot of money-strapped college students had pseudo-exquisite life by loans, but they don't have ability to afford these usurious loans at all. Eventually, the lenders have to resort to violence to collect money back. Have you ever wondered why usurers like to target College students? They are adult giant babies. On the one hand, they have the right and freedom of 18+ adult to get loans, but on the other hand, they lack enough judgment and the ability to weigh the pros and cons. Minors are deprived of their freedom to borrow money by law. Can you say that the government is harming them? The incompetent proletariat has fallen into the capitalist consumption trap because the short-sighted Chinese giant babies do not understand the nature of loans which is that you borrow money from yourself in the future rather than others. Credit card and Internet loan which are typical products of capitalism are very common in China now. The issuing banks think adults have the ability to manage their own credit cards, but they don't have the ability. As the result, the snowball of loans will get bigger and bigger because they are all incompetent and don't know how to calculate the interests, service charges or penalty for breach of contract. In short, they know nothing about the consequences. The result of the incompetent proletariat being implanted into the desire of the bourgeoisie is inevitably chaos. Capitalism opens up the Pandora Box of Chinese desire and brings them into the consumption trap. Through the advertising of stars and some successful people, capitalism has planted the illusion to the superficial public that some products represent the symbols of identity and status, and you will join these upper-class societies after you use them. The rhetoric, sophistry and stories derived from capitalism will interfere with the crowd's normal rationality and make them make irrational consumption decisions. These ads are not selling the goods themselves, but a utopian imagination, impractical fantasies or unrealistic illusions. When advertising evokes your peak experience, you make radical buying decisions. The lower-class is also trying to get something beyond their ability and their status. They don't know it's all a capitalist conspiracy. In China now, the lower orders aped their betters to drink Starbucks. The common folk seemed to prefer Pizza to their traditional steamed bread! The Chinese government has to intervene in this market behavior. I think they should give up the pretense of being rich guys and make a trade-off according to budget line. When we compare the strange respect of mankind for liberty, with their strange want of respect for it, we might imagine that a man had an indispensable right to do harm to others, and no right at all to please himself without giving pain to anyone. Chinese people are used to everything for free under the socialist system, and this is the cancer left by communism. These old scoundrels have become obstacles to trading civilization. These incompetents do need guardianship and control. This is main reason why some the western developed countries can adopt the policy of visa-free to Chinese group-tourists instead of individual-tourists. Like I said before, which curve move first very important. Once you make a mistake, you will pay a huge price to correct it. This is the main reason why I think China is not suitable for democracy, otherwise, it would be another proletarian revolution, namely, the tyranny of the majority. Like country's standard of living depends on its ability to produce goods and services, a country's standard of freedom depends on its ability to manage the freedom. Only a self-disciplined person deserves freedom. The fundamental relationship between freedom and ability is simple, but its implications are far-reaching. If ability is the primary determinant of standard of freedom, other explanations must be of secondary importance. The basic principle of “Everything has a cost,” can be applied here. Freedom also has a cost. The price an electron has to pay for breaking away from the bondage of the nucleus is called ionization energy. When your ability is very low, you only deserve low-electron orbits. Yet the real villain was not dictator from dictatorial system but low self-ability of Chinese. If you don't understand women very well, you can't see the fact how stupid they are; if you don't understand Chinese very well, you can't see the fact how evil they are. Stupidity is the greatest evil. Being enslaved is the inevitable result of their deep-rooted stupidity. They do not deserve freedom and truth because a despicable soul will oppress others when it gets rid of oppression. One of the greatest evils of the crowd is that they try their best to embarrass others after gaining some power. To be honest, Sharon Stone was right it is Karma because they are not people but beasts actually. I don't want to see these lower beasts get rid of slavery in my life. Slavery is an important part of their biological chain. This is the fundamental reason why I oppose Westerners' donation to people of lower civilization. It is because you are just transferring costs, not eliminating them. Public resource must inevitably lead to the tragedy of commons because you consider long-term interests while others only take short-interests into account, resulting in destructive development. For example, in recent years due to overfishing, extinct fishing and unsustainable fishing practices like trawling, the number of fishes has obviously decreased in China's seas, so the Chinese fishermen had to fish in the high seas or in other countries' coastal domains. Many nations have taken steps to impede bottom trawling, largely because it is a disaster for marine ecosystems, but Chinese fishermen still choose the trawling, a practice in which fishermen drag long nets along the ocean floor and kill practically any living thing in their path. The public sea area inevitably leads to the tragedy of the Commons. Poor countries face lower opportunity costs than rich countries. I can understand why people in the world do not like Chinese people, and I don't like them either because they are lawless and so short-sighted. Due to the lack of severe laws and ambiguity of property rights, China's rapid development is based on unsustainability because everyone only weighs their his interests between long-run and short-run instead of between his own interests in short-run and interests of others in long-run. Destructive mining, destructive logging and destructive everything is being put on in China. China is developing too fast, but there is no short-cut in evolution. Similarly, sharing economy and self-service supermarket are both not suitable for Chinese because perfect contract civilization cannot restrain inferiors at all. There are also cases of deprivation of liberty in special circumstances. Every adult has the freedom to drink, but you don't have the freedom to drive after drinking because you would hurt others after losing control. For the same reason, lots of government have legislated against taking drugs, including China. It is illegal to put skylights near airports because you will disrupt civil aviation. I respect the freedom of any fool as long as it does not involve me. I refuse to pay for anyone's stupidity. Keep in mind please: Freedom is not free. 

There is a very big misunderstanding in the world: Freedom VS Orders. In general, people are under the delusion that all rules under dictatorship are bad and breaking the rules is equivalent to progress. People who have this idea are very naïve, shouldn't traffic rules under Autocratic system be obeyed? Frankly speaking, not every variation is progress. More precisely speaking, most variations are harmful so the existence of threshold is necessary to absorb those harmful variation. As Milne Edwards said, “Nature is prodigal in variety, but niggard in innovation.” This principle also can be applied to human society. To be honest, order is more important than innovation because abuse of liberty is more harmful than dictatorship. Even in Democratic countries, there are two parties: a party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform, both as necessary elements of a health state of political life. How to make a society be both orderly and progressive? As I mentioned in Figure 6.1, thresholds are necessary to prevent degeneration, whose function is to absorb any deviations less than the value because most variations are not enough to bring society to the next equilibrium. A system can neither be worked nor preserved without rules and orders, while a system cannot progressive without any variation. Any society must strike a balance between freedom and order, people should behave like a pendulum swings between freedom and orders. My advice to future generations is to maintain ongoing balance before you have enough ability to reach the next balance because I am a conservative. Any government should take an appropriate strategy which lies in somewhere between anarchy on the one hand and Leviathan on the other hand based on its own ecological environment. I advocate freedom of thought but self-discipline of action, but Chinese are just the opposite now. Heresy is the perfect combination of liberalism and low IQ groups. When you can't improve their IQ in short-run, they have to be deprived of their liberty. Only self-discipline can give human freedom. A man without self-discipline doesn't deserve freedom because their freedom has a serious negative externality at the expense of others. 

Should the pendulum clock be biased towards order or freedom in China now? Apparently, the answer is order. Due to the lack of orders and the incompetence of law enforcement, the biggest problem for Chinese people at present is non-professionalism which is incompatible with the perfect trading civilization. How to get order? Democracy must definitely not work because the evolution is so fast in China that people from different eras and different regions even have opposite values. Chinese people are in the middle of ideological transformation from utopian socialism to pragmatic capitalism. A stable and democratic society is impossible without a minimum degree of literacy and knowledge on the part of most citizens and without widespread acceptance of some common set of values. In order to stabilize, society needs common values, but now the Chinese cannot reach a consensus even on the issue of stray dogs or how to drive at a crossroads without a traffic light. No society can be stable unless there is a basic core of value judgments that are unthinkingly accepted by the great bulk of its members. Similarly, the major problem in the United States in the 19^th and early 20^th century was not to promote diversity but to create the core of common values essential to a stable society. Great streams of immigrants were flooding the United States from all over the world, speaking different languages and observing diverse customs. How to deal with this chaos in Chinese Society? China need to be ruled by law which should be enacted by a wise strong agent rather than the foolish public. I think there are two ways: One is colonization and the other is dictatorship. Apparently, the former is better than the latter, because the former can learn many experiences and lessons in the process of advanced civilization development, and avoid the same mistakes. Look at Hong Kong and you will see the benefits of British colonialists to Hong Kong. The British colonists turned a desert island into a modern financial center during 100 years. The abilities of the colonists were different. Frankly speaking, being colonized, as same as being fucked, by whom is more important because it determines what you get at the same price. Apparently, it is also benefitable to be a concubine to the rich than to be a wife to the poor. Lee Kuan Yew gave the colonial regime measured praise, and said that before the British arrived, “there was no organized human society in Singapore, unless a fishing village can be called a society.” Unfortunately, most people don't have his intelligence, vision and insight, so most nationalists are against colonialism and regard colonialism as national humiliation because they are not professionalized. What I want to say is that it is normal thing to get some return they deserve after they help the nation to next equilibrium state by establishing social order, judicial system and so on and so forth. I do not deny that there is a lot of killing in early colonization. You don't expect colonists to come to the colonies for charity, do you？ I quite agree with Darwin’s saying, “What natural selection cannot do, is to modify the structure of one species, without giving it any advantage, for the good of another species.” Similarly, what I cannot do, is to pay any price, without giving me any advantage, for the good of another one. Do you deem that those isolated societies without colonists were living the communism? Love each other, orgasm together? Too young too naïve. I recommend you a good Korean film named Bedevilled (김복남 살인사건의 전말,2010). There is no heaven in this world, and the entry of colonists only changed the original pattern of interests. Regarding to this matter, Darwin made a similar statement in his book of On the Origin of Species: 

Thus out of twenty species growing on a little plot of turf (three feet by four) nine species perished from the other species being allowed to grow up freely. The amount of food for each species of course gives the extreme limit to which each can increase; but very frequently it is not the obtaining food, but the serving as prey to other animals, which determines the average numbers of a species. Thus, there seems to be little doubt that the stock of partridges, grouse, and hares on any large estate depends chiefly on the destruction of vermin. If not one head of game were shot during the next twenty years in England, and, at the same time, if no vermin were destroyed, there would, in all probability, be less game than at present, although hundreds of thousands of game animals are now annually killed. On the other hand, in some cases, as with the elephant and rhinoceros, none are destroyed by beasts of prey: even the tiger in India most rarely dares to attack a young elephant protected by its dam…. Many cases are on record showing how complex and unexpected are the checks and relations between organic beings, which have to struggle together in the same country. I will give only a single instance, which, though a simple one, has interested me. In Staffordshire, on the estate of a relation where I had ample means of investigation, there was a large and extremely barren heath, which had never been touched by the hand of man; but several hundred acres of exactly the same nature had been enclosed twenty-five years previously and planted with Scotch fir. The change in the native vegetation of the planted part of the heath was most remarkable, more than is generally seen in passing from one quite different soil to another: not only the proportional numbers of the heath-plants were wholly changed, but twelve species of plants (not counting grasses and carices) flourished in the plantations, which could not be found on the heath. The effect on the insects must have been still greater, for six insectivorous birds were very common in the plantations, which were not to be seen on the heath; and the heath was frequented by two or three distinct insectivorous birds. Here we see how potent has been the effect of the introduction of a single tree, nothing whatever else having been done, with the exception that the land had been enclosed, so that cattle could not enter…. Not that in nature the relations can ever be as simple as this. Battle within battle must ever be recurring with varying success; and yet in the long-run the forces are so nicely balanced, that the face of nature remains uniform for long periods of time, though assuredly the merest trifle would often give the victory to one organic being over another. 

Without colonists, there would no heaven either. The emergence of colonists only changed the pattern of interests. Nevertheless so profound is our ignorance, and so high our presumption, that we are so indignant and cynical when we hear of the colonization; and as we do not see the cause, we blame our misfortune on the colonists. You are indeed unfortunate under colonial rule, but without colonists you are as same as unfortunate, or more. I advise you to weigh the pros and cons. Negative 10 is better than negative 100 because there is no positive 100 in your options. Have you ever heard of The Butterfly Effect? This term is often used to emphasize the outsize significance of minute occurrences. A minute occurrence can make an outsize significance, let alone colonization. It is irrational to compare the living state of the colonized with the state of Utopia. The essence of modern colonization is transnational corporations. A country, like a large company, in order to maximize the shareholders' profit, can employ foreigners, or foreign organizations to be the chief executive officer and other managers. In this trade, both the colonists and the public can benefit, but at the expense of incompetent dictators. They will not willingly withdraw from the stage of history. An irrational nation is doomed to be enslaved as same fate as the group of women. By whom is more important. The crowd always cannot judge whose interests are in line with himself/herself. For example, some professors as dissidents from famous university have criticized China's authoritarian system and some dead leaders, as a result of which they are deprived of her retirement benefits. What strikes me is that the Internet is full of the voice of schadenfreude. Frankly speaking, the interests of these old professors are consistent with those of the Chinese Communist authorities, but they still want to speak out based on their conscience, aiming at democratizing. Finally, contrary to their expectations, those animals who they fight for bit them back. What a desolation! Lao Liang, a famous news media man, always criticizes the students of Peking University for being too selfish and neglecting the national cause. I support the selfishness of students graduated from Peking University. Should they bleed for a bunch of stupid crowd? This phenomenon usually occurred in history that the elite died for the crowd but the crowd ate steamed buns with their blood. Towards this, I have experienced deeply, so I'm not willing to sacrifice myself for animals under human skin. They don't deserve it. I will not sympathize with anyone because the blisters on their feet are all made by themselves. There are some reason why they are enslaved. The greatest evil in the world is ignorant stupidity. Some utopian critics criticized that Singapore is done with colonialism, but decolonisation of our intellectual and psychological sphere has yet to take place. The essence of evolution lies not only in non-random elimination of genes, but also in non-random elimination of language and lifestyle. You can't get them both unless you evolve on your own and don't count on overtaking on a curve. Dictatorship is the other way. Lucky enough, if you encounter a dictator who has the ability and conscience, he could lead the country to accomplish "corner overtaking." Unfortunately, dictators are always adopt the strategy of crossing the river while feeling the stones, which essence is a process of trial and error. This process is rather slow, repetitive and costly, and you have to experience all the hardships in the path length. To be honest, food safety, milk products and plasticizer issue and so forth Chinese are experiencing now happened one hundred years ago in the United States. The Japanese asset price bubble was an economic bubble in Japan from 1986 to 1991 in which real estate and stock market prices were greatly inflated. In early 1992, this price bubble burst and Japan's economy stagnated. The bubble was characterized by rapid acceleration of asset prices and overheated economic activity, as well as an uncontrolled money supply and credit expansion. From 1991 through 2001, Japan experienced a period of economic stagnation and price deflation known as "Japan's Lost Decade." Equity values plunged 60% from late 1989 to August 1992, while land values dropped throughout the 1990s, falling an incredible 70% by 2001. I am sure that the ignorant Chinese will soon experience all this because there is no short-cut in evolution. Only after the tulip bulb market bubble, can the Dutch be rational. Similarly, only after the same bubble, can the Chinese be rational. Only pain can make people grow. Dictatorship has made it impossible for us to avoid these troubles because people are always short-sighted and there are many vested interests in the path. Compared with dictatorship, colonization has the advantage of reaching the equilibrium state more quickly and less amplitude, because human evolution has obvious second-mover advantage. Amplitude means bubbles. How profitable it is when it is rising is equivalent how wretched when it is falling. The key problem is who's going to end up with the costs. In short, the more irrational people participate in the market, the greater the amplitude there will be. The more bubbles there is, the more unemployed there will be when squeezing bubbles, the more Luddites there will be, the tougher central government has to be or more and more bubbles there will be. A wise and far-sighted ruler cannot be led by s bunch of scoundrels. I'll talk about the amplitude of evolution in a later chapter, so I won't go into it here. But it is impossible that you wouldn't pay anything if you want to make a leap-forward development in short time from the third world to first world. Every coin has two sides, and you can't get everything at the same time. Why didn't American democracy find its way to success in the Middle East? Answer is very simple: it is because America only wanted to fill the outermost orbit, but neglected there are many inner layers left without filling. It is doomed to failure whenever anyone tries to restrain violent civilization with contract civilization. In my opinion, I think the Chinese have at least two inner layers to fill: One is to put yourself in others' shoes; the other is to consider the problems in the view of sustainable development. 

Inept government is more harmful than dictatorial government. A property of typical inept government is inaction. Presumption of guilt is a typical manifestation of inaction by transferring costs to individuals from itself. China need neither democracy nor harmonious society at present, but a powerful and capable dictator, like Lee Kuan Yew who was the first Prime Minister of Singapore, governing for three decades and recognized as the nation's founding father. Severe punishment is his main strategy, and he argued that such disciplinary measures were necessary for political stability which, together with rule of law, were essential for economic progress, famously saying, “Anybody who decides to take me on needs to put on knuckle-dusters. If you think you can hurt me more than I can hurt you, try. There is no other way you can govern a Chinese society.” One of Lee's abiding beliefs was in the efficacy of corporal punishment in the form of caning. Today, Singapore still retains Caning as a legal corporal punishment which can be divided into several contexts: judicial, prison, reformatory, military, school, and domestic or private. These practices of caning are largely a legacy of, and are influenced by, British colonial rule in Singapore. Two lashers took turns to wield the bamboo cane. Blood spurted, bits of flesh flew and the prisoner screamed in pain. Many people from different countries sentenced to three strokes of the cane. The famous case is the case of Michael Fay, an American teenager convicted of vandalism in March 1994 and sentenced to four months' imprisonment, a S$3,500 fine, and six strokes of the cane. This incident attracted worldwide publicity and sparked a minor diplomatic crisis between Singapore and the United States. Under pressure from U.S. President Bill Clinton, Singapore's then President Ong Teng Cheong reduced Fay's sentence from six to four strokes. Fay was caned on 5 May 1994 in Queenstown Remand Prison. This inhumane use of flogging as a mandatory punishment matches the today's Chinese people very well, because fight terror with terror and fight barbarian with barbarism. It should be stipulated as follows: Those people whoever runs a red light were sentenced to four strokes of the cane. Not only this, the government can also earn money to supplement tax revenue by broadcasting live online. It's the best strategy of killing two birds with one stone, I think. In Victorian era, British civilians were also willing to pay for good places to watch the hanging execution in Lant Street. The Chinese mentality is at the same level as that of the British 200 years ago. China does not need “Harmonious society” which is just a product of Utopian cults as same as “Orgasm together.” Only in this way can we transition from the third world to first world in a single generation. Contract civilization is a strict and orderly social form, but Chinese are now in a state of disorder, and only severe laws can turn this disorder into order. As a leader wolf, he must be ruthless and smart instead of inept and feeble. To be honest, Lee's judgment of the Chinese people is very accurate, and I can't agree more. Apparently, Singapore adopted the strategy of hard landing in evolution by draconian laws, and instead, China adopted the strategy of soft landing by every generation paying a price. Like Hong Kong, my feelings for Singapore are complex. On one hand, we share the genes from same race; on the other hand, they don't recognize themselves as Chinese. By the way, colonial lease is more troublesome than colonial cession, as a result of which someone asks for Hong Kong's independence after return back. Why? They are obviously made of Chinese genes. The profound reason lies in the fear and scorn from higher-level civilization to lower-level civilization, so they want to resort to segregation in order to void degeneration and being assimilated. A child of the poor was adopted by the rich from his born, when he grow up but look down on his biological mother. Anyway, hope them get better and better. Here I share you another my experience. I was naughty when I was a child, so my knees were often bleed, but every time before my new meat comes out I can't wait to uncover the scab, and it turned out to be scabby again. Every time I did a vicious circle, and I have to suffer the pain time and time again. In my theory, the scab is the dictator, and the new meat is the rational and capable mass. More haste, less speed. 99% of the bad things are done from good intention. Either they were destroyed, or awakened, but the anxious American chose neither. An egg is a life if opened from the inside, and a food if opened from outside. When power and ability cannot keep up with your ambition, God chooses to castrate your desires. Material civilization and spiritual civilization should be co-evolution together. Dictators are shameless, but very useful for Barbarian because the power ought not to fall into the hands of the vulgar. Maybe dictators are not gods but the people are definitely beasts.

As a capitalist conservative, I object to any revolution under the guise of liberating the whole mankind. To be honest, I am afraid to hear the word “liberation”, because I know there is no such thing called liberation. I know behind every liberation there must hide an ulterior plot. I am not a feminist because God isn't either. The blind and radical revolution will only bring mankind into degeneration when other factors are not ready, because the cognitive power of the public is so limited. I find a common phenomenon, the more advanced organisms are, the more likely they become extinct. You can easily find bugs in rotten apples, or cockroaches in your kitchen, but you cannot find a dinosaur in any place. We can draw a general conclusion that the more backward the civilization is the more invincible it is. Afghanistan is unconquerable. The most powerful countries on the planet had tried to conquer Afghanistan, including Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States, but all of them all failed. The main reason why they all failed is that they want to conquer it instead of eliminating it. On the contrary, higher civilization tends to become extinct. A thousand years ago, the Song Dynasty of China, as a highly developed civilization in that time, was also eliminated by the barbaric Mongols. Like I said before, violent civilization is the eternal ground state. Never forget the rule: Fight terror with terror and fight violence with violence. We need to evolve step by step, and radicalism and utopian perfectionism are bound to bring us to degeneration. Victims are necessary in each step. Any radicalism or utopian perfectionism is based on zero threshold which is anti-natural. My conservative advice is that please keep current equilibrium when you don't know where the next equilibrium is, otherwise you will make yourself in a worse situation. That is to say, a great many bad things, and a very few good ones. Order matters a lot in evolution. Once the order is reversed, society must suffer the degeneration. The Chinese ruling class now is not good, but I know the next one is worse, and after the trade-off, I decide to stand with the former because I need time and peace to think and write. “Timing” is also important in evolution. There is an old saying in China to describe a successful revolution: “You are with right timing, right place and right people.” I evolution, there is no short-cut, bearing and waiting is always good strategy. You who act a step early are a pioneer; you who act two steps early are a forerunner; you who act three steps early are a martyr. No one can stop the changes of the times, and similarly no one can speed up the changes of the times. It's not a good thing to evolve too fast. Take decompression sickness for example. Decompression sickness, also called generalized barotrauma or the bends, refers to injuries caused by a rapid decrease in the pressure that surrounds you, of either air or water. It usually occurs in deep-sea divers who ascend to the surface too quickly. To prevent decompression sickness, most divers make a safety stop for a few minutes before ascending to the surface. This is usually done around 15 feet (4.5 meters) below the surface. If you're diving very deep, you may want to ascend and stop a few times to ensure your body has time to adjust gradually. In short, evolution needs to be slow because death can solve all troubles. Thresholds are always necessary in human evolution.

On Democracy

It's really hard to give an exact definition of the word “Democracy”. It is generally accepted in the West that universal suffrage represents democracy. I assume this definition is correct, and then let's take a brief look at the short history of democracy according Wikipedia. In France, the Convention assembly was elected by all males 25 and over in 1792, and universal male suffrage was given in 1848, with the exception of the military who obtained the right to vote in 1945. At the formation of the federal state and with the Constitution of 1848, Switzerland became the first modern state to introduce universal male suffrage; this has continued unbroken since its adoption. In America, after the American Revolution (1775 – 1783), the Constitution did not originally define who was eligible to vote, allowing each state to determine who was eligible. In the early history of the U.S., most states allowed only white male adult property owners to vote (about 6% of the population). Over subsequent decades, voting rights expanded to include more of the population. Vermont, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky were the three states to have full adult suffrage for white males before 1800. In the United Kingdom, universal suffrage was granted to all men by the Representation of the People Act 1918. Generally, universal suffrage in the western world became widespread since the 1920s, and the history of women's universal suffrage is even shorter. In France, universal female suffrage was introduced in 1944. In Unite States, the 19th Amendment extended the franchise to women in all states in 1920. In UK, the Representation of the People Act 1918 granted some women the right to vote for the first time in national elections. Switzerland gave rights for women to vote just very recently in 1990. Apparently, not only that the time of universal suffrage is different in different countries, but women's suffrage is far behind male suffrage in all countries. Have you ever wondered why the birth of universal suffrage was so late, and why female universal suffrage came later? There's only one reason the Crowd don't have the correct judgement, neither do women. 

We can regard universal suffrage as a typical kind of affirmative action. Let's take a look at what our fathers of sociology say about democracy which are basically theories, starting from the 16^th century and ending up in the early 20^th century. (Unfortunately, they are all fathers right no mothers, I will be the first mother.) Thomas Hobbes was an absolutist, a conservative and absolutist, and thought democracy doesn’t work. John Locke was the first to propose the concept that men are born free and equal, and then he proposed the principle of separation of powers, but he did not advocate suffrage. Rousseau, who was one of the path-breakers on the French Revolution, believed that public affairs have to be done by the majority of men, and he actually was not advocating voting rights for women yet, but at least voting rights for all men. Montesquieu distinguishes between legislative, executive and juridical. His ideas are close to the idea of universal suffrage, and he proposed all citizens should have the right to vote, except whose estate is so humble that they are deemed to have no will of their own. In order to have a will you better be a rational property owner. Apparently, fathers had reservations about universal suffrage. Strictly speaking, in fact today, the United States is not a universal suffrage system yet because the presidential election is really decided by the votes of the Electoral College, so in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, for example, more Americans voted for Hilary Clinton, but Donald Trump actually won the presidency because he was awarded the majority of Electoral College votes. Why? Why did the fathers of the United States distrust the universal suffrage either? I think it stems from their distrust of the masses or the crowds. Next, let's take a look at what did Adolf Hitler say about democracy in Mein Kampf, who are called historical sinner:

The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism which without it would not be thinkable. It provides this world plague with the culture in which its germs can spread. In its most extreme form, parliamentarianism created a 'monstrosity of excrement and fire,' in which, however, sad to say, the 'fire' seems to me at the moment to be burned out…. The parliament arrives at some decision whose consequences may be ever so ruinous-nobody bears any responsibility for this, no one can be taken to account…. Can a fluctuating majority of people ever be made responsible in any case? Isn't the very idea of responsibility bound up with the individual?... And thereby every practical responsibility vanishes. For responsibility can lie only in the obligation of an individual and not in a parliamentary bull session. Such an institution can only please the biggest liars and sneaks of the sort that shun the light of day, because it is inevitably hateful to an honorable, straightforward man who welcomes personal responsibility. And that is why this type of democracy has become the instrument of that race which in its inner goals must shun the light of day, now and in all ages of the future…. The majority can never replace the man. It is not only a representative of stupidity, but of cowardice as well. And no more than a hundred empty heads make one wise man will a heroic decision arise from a hundred cowards…. At first I could not help but be amazed at how short a time it took this great evil power within the state to create a certain opinion even where it meant totally falsifying profound desires and views which surely existed among the public. In a few days a ridiculous episode had become a significant state action, while, conversely, at the same time, vital problems fell a prey to public oblivion, or rather were simply filched from the memory and consciousness of the masses…. Thus, in the course of a few weeks it was possible to conjure up names out of the void, to associate them with incredible hopes on the part of the broad public, even to give them a popularity which the really great man often does not obtain his whole life long; names which a month before no one had even seen or heard of, while at the same time old and proved figures of political or other public life, though in the best of health, simply died as far as their fellow men were concemed, or were heaped with such vile insults that their names soon threatened to become the symbol of some definite act of infamy or villainy….In every case it does nothing but carry out the momentary will of the majority…. Its political ability can only be judged according to the skill with which it understands how either to adapt itself to the will of the majority or to pull the majority over to its side. Thereby it sinks from the heights of real government to the level of a beggar confronting the momentary majority. Indeed, its most urgent task becomes nothing more than either to secure the favor of the existing majority, as the need arises, or to form a majority with more friendly inclinations. If this succeeds, it may 'govern' a little while longer; if it doesn't succeed, it can resign. The soundness of its purposes as such is beside the point…. The internal composition of the five hundred chosen representatives of the people, with regard to profession or even individual abilities, gives a picture as incoherent as it is usually deplorable. For no one can believe that these men elected by the nation are elect of spirit or even of intelligence! It is to be hoped that no one will suppose that the ballots of an electorate which is anything else than brilliant will give rise to statesmen by the hundreds. Altogether we cannot be too sharp in condemning the absurd notion that geniuses can be born from general elections. In the first place, a nation only produces a real statesman once in a blue moon and not a hundred or more at once; and in the second place, the revulsion of the masses for every outstanding genius is positively instinctive. Sooner will a camel pass through a needle's eye than a great man be ' discovered' by an election…. In a mass meeting of all classes it is not that speaker who is mentally closest to the intellectuals present who speaks best, but the one who conquers the heart of the masses…. It was evident that this new movement could gain the public significance and support which are necessary pre-requisites in such a gigantic struggle only if it succeeded from the very outset in awakening a sacrosanct conviction in the hearts of its followers, that here it was not a case of introducing a new electoral slogan into the political field but that an entirely new world view, which was of a radical significance, had to be promoted…. One man proclaimed a truth somewhere and, calling for the solution of a definite question, fixed his aim and founded a movement for the purpose of carrying his views into effect…. Of course, it is quite a mistake to suppose that those who show a very intelligent grasp of the theory underlying a movement are for that reason qualified to fill responsible positions on the directorate. The contrary is very frequently the case. Great masters of theory are only very rarely great organizers also. And this is because the greatness of the theorist and founder of a system consists in being able to discover and lay down those laws that are right in the abstract, whereas the organizer must first of all be a man of psychological insight. But it is still more rare to find a great theorist who is at the same time a great leader. For the latter must be more of an agitator, a truth that will not be readily accepted by many of those who deal with problems only from the scientific standpoint. For an agitator who shows himself capable of expounding ideas to the great masses must always be a psychologist, even though he may be only a demagogue…. For to be a leader means to be able to move the masses. The gift of formulating ideas has nothing whatsoever to do with the capacity for leadership…. The propagandist aims at inducing the whole people to accept his teaching…. Put in another way, this means that in every great revolutionary movement that is of world importance the idea of this movement must always be spread abroad through the operation of propaganda. The propagandist must never tire in his efforts to make the new ideas clearly understood, inculcating them among others, or at least he must place himself in the position of those others and endeavour to upset their confidence in the convictions they have hitherto held. I saw that the Socialist-Marxist organizations mastered and applied this instrument with astounding skill. And I soon realized that the correct use of propaganda is a true art which has remained practically unknown to the bourgeois parties…. What gave Marxism its amazing influence over the broad masses was not that formal printed work which sets forth the Jewish system of ideas, but the tremendous oral propaganda carried on for years among the masses…. There seems to have been no clarity on the very first question: Is propaganda a means or an end? It is a means and must therefore be judged with regard to its end. It must consequently take a form calculated to support the aim which it serves. It is also obvious that its aim can vary in importance from the standpoint of general need, and that the inner value of the propaganda will vary accordingly…. If the so-called responsible authorities had been clear on this point, they would never have fallen into such uncertainty over the form and application of this weapon: for even propaganda is no more than a weapon, though a frightful one in the hand of an expert. The second really decisive question was this: To whom should propaganda be addressed? To the scientifically trained intelligentsia or to the less educated masses? It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses. All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous…. Already at that time I took up my stand on those important fundamental questions where public opinion had gone wrong as a whole. I opposed these wrong notions without regard either for popularity or for hatred, and I was ready to face the fight…. Their brilliant knowledge of the primitive sentiments of the broad masses is shown by their atrocity propaganda, which was adapted to this condition. And in England they understood one more thing: that this spiritual weapon can succeed only if it is applied on a tremendous scale, but that success amply covers all costs. The right of personal freedom recedes before the duty to preserve the race. There is no freedom to sin at the cost of posterity and hence of the race…. While both denominations maintain missions in Asia and Africa in order to win new followers for their doctrine-an activity which can boast but very modest success compared to the advance of the Mohammedan faith in particular right here in Europe they lose millions and millions of inward adherents who either are alien to all religious life or simply go their own ways. The consequences, particularly from the moral point of view, are not favorable…. Also noteworthy is the increasingly violent struggle against the dogmatic foundations of the various churches without which in this human world the practical existence of a religious faith is not conceivable. The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude. The various substitutes have not proved so successful from the standpoint of results that they could be regarded as a useful replacement for previous religious creeds. But if religious doctrine and faith are really to embrace the broad masses, the unconditional authority of the content of this faith is the foundation of all efficacy. What the current mores, without which assuredly hundreds of thousands of well-bred people would live sensibly and reasonably but millions of others would not, are for general living, state principles are for the state, and dogmas for the current religion. Only through them is the wavering and infinitely interpretable, purely intellectual idea delimited and brought into a form without which it could never become faith. Otherwise the idea would never pass beyond a metaphysical conception; in short, a philosophical opinion. The attack against dogmas as such, therefore, strongly resembles the struggle against the general legal foundations of a state, and, as the latter would end in a total anarchy of the state, the former would end in a worthless religious nihilism…. For the political man, the value of a religion must be estimated less by its deficiencies than by the virtue of a visibly better substitute. As long as this appears to be lacking, what is present can be demolished only by fools or criminals…. Not the smallest blame for the none too delectable religious conditions must be borne by those who encumber the religious idea with too many things of a purely earthly nature and thus often bring it into a totally unnecessary conflict with so-called exact science. In this victory will almost always fall to the latter, though perhaps after a hard struggle, and religion will suffer serious damage in the eyes of all those who are unable to raise themselves above a purely superficial knowledge…. Worst of all, however, is the devastation wrought by the misuse of religious conviction for political ends. In truth, we cannot sharply enough attack those wretched crooks who would like to make religion an implement to perform political or rather business services for them. These insolent liars, it is true, proclaim their creed in a stentorian voice to the whole world for other sinners to hear; but their intention is not, if necessary, to die for it, but to live better. For a single-political swindle, provided it brings in enough, they are willing to sell the heart of a whole religion…. Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life. The precondition for this does not lie in associating superior and inferior, but in the total victory of the former. The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable…. The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice…. The fundamental principle is that the State is not an end in itself but the means to an end…. Its end and its purpose is to preserve the existence of the race…. On the contrary, the poison which has invaded the national body, especially since the Thirty Years' War, has destroyed the uniform constitution not only of our blood but also of our national soul. The open frontiers of our native country, the association with non-German foreign elements in the territories that lie all along those frontiers, and especially the strong influx of foreign blood into the interior of the Reich itself, has prevented any complete assimilation of those various elements, because the influx has continued steadily…. If the development of France in the present style were to be continued for three hundred years, the last remnants of Frankish blood would be submerged in the developing European-African mulatto state…. It would be absurd to appraise a man's worth by the race to which he belongs and at the same time to make war against the Marxist principle, that all men are equal, without being determined to pursue our own principle to its ultimate consequences.  

Let me sum up some of Hitler's points of view: (1) the masses would not take the responsibility for the decisions what they made together; (2) the masses represent stupidity and geniuses can never be born from general elections; (3) propaganda is a form of deception aiming at building false beliefs; (4) the masses, with limited understanding and shortsighted, must be bewitched and used; (5) personal freedom must submit to the continuation of the species; (6) humans need religion because there is no substitute; (7) political swindle is an abuse of religion for their own interests; (8) racial hybridization is contrary to the will of Nature, and the stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness; (9) all men are not equal. I don't want to defend Adolf Hitler, but frankly speaking, I think his understanding of democracy is profound and correct much better than current German politicians, but the question is how to recognize genius from the masses. The idea of genius must be different from that of the masses, but most of the different views from the masses are wrong. Unlike Hitler, I don’t love war, but here I hope I can provide a new perspective on the role of death in evolution. Next, I will illustrate my point of views by analyzing the problems which the West and East are facing now. 

Most advanced societies rely on democratic principles to set government policy. Why is that? I think it is because most of Westerns believe democracy represent the embodiment of justice, much better than dictatorship. But, is that really so? I don't think so. What so-called “Justice” or what so-called “Equity” in masses’ minds are a distortion of reality. John Stuart Mill pointed out that voting gives rise to a tyranny of the majority. As Milton Friedman eloquently put it in 1962, “the characteristic feature of action through political channels is that it tends to require or enforce substantial conformity. The great advantage of the market is that it permits wide diversity. if he is in the minority, submit.” One of the major evils of a mass democratic society is a tyranny of the majority. If we can say dictatorship is tyranny of the minority to the majority, the essence of universal suffrage is the tyranny of the majority to minorities. The Game Theory has proved that Median theorem can explain why the parties in a two-party system are similar to each other: They are both moving toward the median voter. The logic of democracy is that minority views are not given much weight. Isn't that the real genius of democracy? The voters are ultimately the blame because we voters were too shortsighted and stupid. For example, monogamy is not democracy, it is sexual bribery and placebo. This kind of democracy will be a very strong tendency to suppress dissent and to create conformity with the majority views. The biggest mistake the West made is that democracy is equated with civilization. I can imagine how depressed and angry Churchill was when he defeated 1945 election. Frankly speaking, in my opinion, democracy is not the best system and dictatorship is not the worst. You must admit that the precursors of any democratic system were dictatorships. Democracy is a double-edged sword, depending on the timing (Tipping Point) when society changes from dictatorship to democracy. This should not be done in haste, or it must cause social degeneration. The more stupid people are, the more dictatorship they need, otherwise they must harm to others and themselves. When the masses get some rights beyond their power, they would be doomed to be used by some shameless hustlers. We must bear in mind that the only motivation why all parties propose or change their political programs is for the next election. Universal suffrage would not apply to the “Pyramid” of social strata, or it is indeed the proletarian revolution. We could have rule of law without democracy. The rule of law precedes over democracy and more important than democracy because the order matters a lot. God liberates human beings in order as well. The first problem for China is to establish a legal society and cultivate a large, rational and responsible middle class, instead of voting. It is terrible when democracy becomes a trend, and equal rights become a fashion that caters to people who are unqualified. When I was a kid, I really enjoyed watching TVB, but I gave it up after 1997 because he started to cater to ignorant masses for money. Like I said, order matter a lot in evolution. In inheritance, who died first very important. There is an old saying in China “Three lucky things for a man: promotion, fortune, dead wife.” You should think about the logical sequence in it. I am not entirely denying democracy, but order matters a lot both in evolution and social transformation, otherwise, you're putting the cart before the horse. You can't deny that democracy means inefficiency and dictatorship means efficiency, like the subway and road traffic. The subway is an absolute dictatorship, under one planned center, without any freedom but efficiency; on the contrary, road traffic is an open system, under all people's minds, with absolute freedom but inefficiency. So before you open the road, you have to make rules and educate people to follow the traffic signals first, or road traffic immediately falls into chaos. The first task about China is to become rich and establish rules, which are more important than democracy, or election is only another proletarian revolution. 

Let's review a classic example in The Game Theory from Yale University open course: Number game. The rule is without showing your neighbor what you are doing, put it in the box below a whole number between 1 and a 100, we will calculate the average number chosen in the class, and the winner of this game is the person who gets closest to two-thirds times the average number. It turns out, 1 would have been the winning answer, but not actually, because not everyone is rational. It is asking a lot to get to 1. If let the same students repeat the game again, they all choose lower numbers than last time because they are approaching reason, so the result converges to 1. We can know that the consequence of rationality really matters in playing games. I need to be rational myself, and I need to know that others are rational. I need to know that people know that people are rational. The technical expression of that in philosophy is common knowledge. I am a rational person and I choose 1 as my result, but I am not the winner, because others are irrational. So as a rational person, how can I win the game? Two ways: One is to pander to irrational crowds deliberately; the other is to wake up the ignorant masses. Shameless politicians, as pretty sophisticated game player, would choose the former, and the Saviors, as special mission takers, would choose the latter. That is the difference between politicians and Saviors. Democracy has nothing to do with truth, and is a kind of freedom, the more foolish and irrational nation, the more unsuitable it is. Among the benighted nations, the victor in election must not be the truth, but agitators.  

On threshold

The word “threshold” can be used in a variety of industries. It means the point that must be exceeded to begin producing a given effect or result or to elicit a response: a low threshold of pain. Threshold is widespread in nature, and the existence of cell membrane plays a threshold role. According to Wikipedia, the cell membrane is a biological membrane that separates the interior of all cells from the outside environment (the extracellular space). It consists of a lipid bilayer with embedded proteins. The basic function of the cell membrane is to protect the cell from its surroundings. The cell membrane, as selectively permeable, controls the movement of substances in and out of cells and organelles, which means that it will only let certain things (such as water) enter the cell, and certain things (like wastes) leave. I learned this term for the first time in nerve conduction, here I want to tell you how important threshold is from the views of Economics and Evolution. In my opinion, there are two meanings of threshold in sociology: One is entry requirement to prevent the entry of unqualified persons; the other is protection width to absorb all deviations which are smaller than the value of threshold. Apparently, the danger of zero threshold is very serious. In terms of cell membrane, zero threshold means it lose its selective permeability and permits transport of all molecules but not certain molecules. In short, the cells are dead when suffering cell membrane's zero threshold. In my opinion, lowering the threshold is a very short-sighted strategy which only bring short-term prosperity, a kind of irrational exuberance, but store up trouble for the future. A typical case of economics is the subprime mortgage crisis in the United States. God never chose the mode of love, but from the beginning he chose the model of reproduction. Why many marriages are painful? I think it is because of the spread from Elitism to Egalitarianism with zero-threshold. In savages' times, Natural Selection almost inevitably causes much death of individuals who can't adapt to the environment very well. Darwin wrote that in his Origin of Species :

In looking at Nature, it is most necessary to keep the foregoing considerations always in mind – never to forget that every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers; that each lives by a struggle at some period of its life…. Battle within battle must ever be recurring with varying success…. The struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high geometrical ratio of increase which is common to all organic beings. But the struggle almost invariably will be most severe between the individuals of the same species, for they frequent the same districts, require the same food, and are exposed to the same dangers. As the individuals of the same species come in all respects into the closest competition with each other, the struggle will generally be most severe between them; it will be almost equally severe between the varieties of the same species, and next in severity between the species of the same genus…. As species of the same genus have usually, though by no means invariably, some similarity in habits and constitution, and always in structure, the struggle will generally be more severe between species of the same genus, when they come into competition with each other, than between species of distinct genera…. Sexual Selection depends, not on a struggle for existence, but on a struggle between the males for possession of the females; the result is not death to the unsuccessful competitor, but few or no offspring. Sexual selection is, therefore, less rigorous than natural selection. Generally, the most vigorous males, those which are best fitted for their places in nature, will leave most progeny. But in many cases, victory will depend not on general vigour, but on having special weapons, confined to the male sex. A hornless stag or spurless cock would have a poor chance of leaving offspring. Sexual selection by always allowing the victor to breed…. With animals having separated sexes, there will be in most cases a struggle between the males for the possession of the females. The most vigorous males, or those which have most successfully struggled with their conditions of life, will generally leave most progeny. I think this cannot be disputed. 

What can we get from Darwin? The God set a threshold for both survival right and reproduction right, especial for males, and everyone has to encounter a severe struggle for survival and reproduction. In the war-ridden years and polygamy, survival and reproduction rights are luxury goods for each man as same as in animal world. How about now after the spread from Elitism to Egalitarianism? Each man takes intercourse right and reproduction right for granted. In the time of peace, survival right first spread out with zero-threshold over the world, especially in West where so-called “human rights” became most popular pet phrase. Of course, the spread of survival right is accompanied by division of labor, and lots of bottom men have a chance to survive by taking comparative advantage and trade. After the crowed getting survival right, they inevitably ask for intercourse right because sexual release is a necessity for a normal human being. Monogamy irresistible rises at expense of women's interests. You have to admit that monogamy is the biggest affirmative action in the world, much more big than Anti-racism. As a result, reproduction right with zero-threshold is a follow-up, and monogamy must lead to the change of sexual selection in nature. In my view, zero-threshold is a very horrible thing, and must lead to chaos. Many people who are not qualified in China choose to reproduce for the sake of their old age. I feel that everything between sexes become zero-threshold now under so-called “Human rights” and “Love”. Love, such a noble thing, becomes a cheap good with zero-threshold. You can find that everyone on the street, with two shoulders and one head, can talk about love, which is a luxury even for genius. In animals' world, inferior genes become rarer and rarer and finally disappearing according to the principle of “let the strongest live and the weakest die”. On the contrary, in human world, inferior genes are more likely to spread in country with high social welfare. All chaos is caused by the lowering of standards.  

Threshold plays the role of doorsill as same as equilibrium prices in economic markets. The essence of equilibrium price is a threshold which kicks unqualified buyers and unqualified sellers out of the market. Here, I give you a familiar example: Visa. Everyone knows when you're leaving for an international trip, a passport is the single most important thing to double-check. Passports are powerful, but not all are created equal. Whether you'll need a visa to get into different countries depending on what passport you own. According to the information on the internet, Germany is the most powerful passports in the world, and 176 countries can be visited without a visa. In second place is Sweden, which both give access to 175 countries. Denmark, Finland, Italy, Spain and United States tied as the third most powerful group, which have 174 visa-free countries on list. Chinese passport tied for 43^th place. Have you ever wondered why Germans can go 176 countries without a visa, but Chinese people need to apply a visa wherever they go? Is there a human right on this issue? Now, I still can clearly remember my application for an American visa in American Embassy in 2012 in Beijing. I was waiting in the line for an interview like a lamb to be slaughtered, and I nervously and stammered told the interviewer that I had a good job and a good salary, and I was raised up by my single mother, so I wouldn't stay in America. During this period, I need to press my handprint to prevent me from doing bad things. Is the visa necessary? Of course, yes. The essence of the visa is the threshold to kick the unqualified applicants out of America. The United States government inspects me from the following aspects: Property, job, domestic relatives, and the result of the survey is that I am a qualified tourist. Why does the United States establish a threshold? It is because there are a large number of unqualified people who want to enter in, and the United States was forced to establish threshold screening. Visa is necessary because people should be divided into different ranks with different treatment forever. Visa with Zero threshold inevitably leads to confusion. Before 17 August 2015, Thai tourist visas for Chinese are almost zero-threshold. I have applied for a Thai visa through an online travel agency in 2015. It is very convenient for me, until bomb attack happened at a shrine in central Bangkok in 17 August 2015. A 25-year-old Uyghur jihadist terrorist from Xinjiang, an Islamist hotbed region in western China, is the prime suspect, Thai authorities have said. What is the counter-strategy of the Thai government? Raise the visa threshold. All network agents are not allowed to apply for visas for people born or licensed in Xinjiang. In fact, the Thai government wants to crowd out the Uygurs, but he is afraid that the world will blame him for racial discrimination because geographical discrimination is much lighter than racial discrimination. As a result. I became a victim, killed by mistake. The only way I can go to Thailand now is Visa on arrival. I can't imagine what would happen if the United States had zero Visa thresholds for Chinese people. Here I give you another classic example: Television content rating systems which are systems for evaluating the content and reporting the suitability of television programs for children, teenagers, or adults. Many countries have their own television rating system and countries’ rating processes vary by local priorities. According to Wikipedia, In America, television programming would continue to fall into one of the six ratings categories (TV-Y, TV-Y7, TV-G, TV-PG, TV-14 or TV-MA), but content descriptors would be added to the ratings where appropriate, based on the type(s) of objectionable content included in the individual program or episode: D (suggestive dialogue), L (coarse language), S (sexual content), V (violence) and FV (fantasy violence: a descriptor exclusively for use in the TV-Y7 category).

Wrong cognition in the West, that everyone is born equal, inevitably leads to zero-threshold, which means the loss of rank. Egalitarianism with zero-threshold must cause social chaos. Everything should have a threshold, because there is no such thing as a free lunch in the world. Zero-threshold is very harmful and contrary to God's will. Sub prime mortgage crisis in America was triggered by lower standards, and let unqualified buyers into the purchase market in order to make the illusion of a real estate boom. Even some people can zero down payment for housing, and it means buyers passed all the risk of house prices down to the bank. Rank is really important, and the consequences of zero-threshold are very serious. Banks can't distinguish low-quality from high-quality borrowers if they don't divide people into the ranks by credit histories. Credit history is a very important threshold in Western countries. In mass spectrometry, resolution measures of the ability to distinguish two peaks. When the threshold is zero, it means that all ions pass through completely, and you can't get target ions through a quadrupole mass filter. As same as education, when everyone can get Yale degree, the Yale degree doesn't work any longer, and in fact, Yale University divided the students into more than five grades: A+, A, B+, B, B-, C+, C, C-, D+, D, F, depending on their grades. Different letters represent different signals which are aimed at distinguishing between good and bad. Lowering standards is just a kind of short-termism, and only can solve the immediate problems by leading to irrational prosperity, and in the long run, it will inevitably lead to confusion, such as subprime mortgage crisis. Because the female driver cries, if you sympathize with a female driver, who is crying there because didn't pass driving test, to reduce the standard to issue the driving license, you are murdering innocent passers. Low intelligence is most harmful. On the surface, China is already the second-biggest economy, but all these are irrational exuberance brought by zero-threshold, including unqualified buildings, poisonous foods, irrational citizens and even unqualified education. To be honest, China has a lot of trouble in future, and I guess the government will solve the problem by printing money to continue to make bubbles, because the authorities are afraid of these unqualified people. Let's wait and see.  

Any life with a high threshold thing, must obtain the survival right by competition from the very beginning. Sperm is typical example. A mature man, normally, can expel about 200 million sperms at one ejaculation, but most of them die out in the acid environment of the female reproductive pathway, and then only 1%-5% sperm can reach the uterine cavity, and in the end only one sperm has qualification to fuse with an egg. How fierce the competition between sperm is! The probability of winning is equal to 1/200 million = 5×10-9. There should be a threshold for survival right. If not, the wanton spread of the right to life can lead to a series of unexpected consequences. Survival right must be a rare right with high threshold that I stress that again crocodile mother will lose 90% of their children in the first week after breeding. When you rescued a boy in Africa, you gave him survival right, but this right must draw some followed-up questions. He would probably be a rapist when he grows up in Arica environment, because rape is his best strategy. Saving a boy means you are the culprit of some rapes. All confusion in human world is due to the zero-threshold spread of the survival right, because some physiological needs accompanied by living. In the animal kingdom, the right to live is a luxury, but in human world, No one I think can have marvelled more at death, than we have done. On the question of death, Rousseau said, “Fear of death is not natural. In nature, one accepts it.” He agreed with Hobbes that We are indeed driven by the fear of death. We are being sort of indoctrinated to fear death, and have anxieties in my life. I have to get out of those silly ideas from people’s mind what society put in there. Life is temporary, and death is eternal. Rousseau, like all his contemporaries, was strongly opposed to the war. I am neither opposed nor supported the war. War is a sudden event that some people must benefit from while others must lose from. The biggest difference between modern war and ancient war is that the modern war ends in declaration of surrender by failed party but the ancient war ends in all death by failed party. An old saying: all the troubles come from you can’t completely eliminate them. Not only that, but the winners of the war will still have to feed them, otherwise will be accused of abuse of prisoners. In other words, the losers of the war get rewarded instead of any punishment. I am neutral in the problem of death because that is a part of God's strategies. I don't believe that people will live forever because it can not keep equilibrium if there are childbirth everyday everywhere but no death at all. Do you think it's possible? This should be called creative destruction. Ignorant people think that war is cruel, but the truth human beings are also in cruel world without war. I support abortion girls in India and China, because the only purpose of their survival is to serve as a comfort woman for men. Peace is not the best outcome, and war is not the worst. Rational view of war and peace, God will choose a suitable balance. Any event that appears or disappears will change the original pattern of interests by creating new victims and beneficiaries. Because at any cross section of evolution, the number of products and services is constant, subject to the productivity of society, so the change of rules necessarily means that the original distribution principle has been changed. God has his own purpose why survival machines have to die, and genes can be eternal. I still believe that segregation is the best strategy, because when you can't lead them into the next equilibrium, please don't break the current equilibrium easily, for the outcome could be worse for both of you two. 

The spread of survival right with zero-threshold inevitably leads to the spread of mating right with zero-threshold. Keep that in your mind in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, physiological needs are basic needs for survival, sex included in this basic level. God adopted the strategy of winner-take-all in non-human animals, so mating right must be a rare right with high threshold that I stress that again 4 per cent of the male elephant seals accounted for 88 per cent of all the copulations observed, and in many others, there is a large surplus of bachelor males who probably never get a chance to copulate in their whole lives. Generally, in animal's world, males have to fight for possession of the females, because the most vigorous males, those which are best fitted for their places in nature, will leave most progeny. With the progress of tools and division of labor, these large surplus of bachelor males got bargaining chips more and more in the negotiations with authorities. After weighing their own pros and cons, authorities had to make a compromise, so the law of monogamy was promulgated. No one I think can have marvelled more at inequality in mating right, than we have done. But in sex trade, they are still unqualified consumer must lead to a series of subsequent confusion during sexes. These unqualified consumers choose to resort to violence to satisfy their basic physiological needs in contract civilizations. Check out the news about Cologne sexual assault in Germany in 2016. This is not only the impact of a disorderly world to an orderly world, but also the impact of violent civilization to contract civilization. To be honest, I don't sympathize with the European continent because maybe everything is not what you want but it must be the result of your choice. Like women, ignorance does not mean no-fault. 

The mating right and the reproductive right are bound together based on God's reproductive strategy in non-human animals, so the high threshold of mating right inevitably leads to the high threshold of reproductive rights, but they are different in human animals. In other words, in animals, reproduction is the purpose and mating is the means, but mating (Orgasm) is the purpose and reproduction becomes a by-product in human beings. The spread of mating right with zero-threshold inevitably leads to the spread of reproductive right with zero-threshold. Sexual selection by always allowing the victor to breed in animals, but mandatory monogamy in human beings, however, has changed the sexual selection of nature. There should be a threshold for reproduction. If not, bad gene drives out good. The spread of mating right with zero-threshold inevitably leads to the spread of reproduction right with zero-threshold. A Japanese writer once said, “How horrible it is to think of being a parent without having to pass an exam!” China is now in such a terrible situation. Why are Chinese people generally poor in quality? It is because a series of unqualified descendants trained by a series of unqualified parents. Unqualified parents will not be laid off once they get on the job and must create irrational children. Under the instigation of so-called “equality”, some people with genetic defects and illness of every kind take the reproductive right for granted. In my opinion, many parents in China are not qualified, but they are constantly breeding because of negative externalities. In fact, the government should ban them from breeding who has a genetic defect, but no one I think can have marvelled more at inequality in reproductive right, than we have done. Fortunately, God began to control human reproduction that there are more and more infertile patients in China, and the high price of Tube baby plays the role of a threshold. Eventually, how does human eliminate bad genes? I think it should depend on the separation of reproductive rights and mating rights, and that would be the final result of the social division and specialization in women’s revolution, which requires women to be rational to know that the farmer is an alliance and the latter is a trade.

You are stupid if you think that love is free. There should be a threshold for love. If not, you love is worth nothing. Love is the mutual appreciation between two souls, but become so cheap goods that everyone can own love. In fact, most of crowds don't have anything to do with love in their whole lives because they don't even have souls. Principle 2 of Microeconomics: The cost of something is what you give up to get it. In my theory, the value of anything in imaginary axis depends on what you are willing to give up in real axis, so their love is worthless in my eyes because they don't have any opportunity cost in their real axis to loss. Most people don't have anything in imaginary axis, and only the Savior has a reputation after death. When a motley crew are no longer rushed all day for survival, how to kill leisure became their biggest problem. Their only purpose of falling in love is to kill time; the love fantasy is invented to mask their horrible idleness. There is a strange phenomenon in China: The wealthier you are, the more pragmatic you are; the poorer you are, the more imaginative you are. The greatest religion in the world is love, aimed at brainwashing women. Any lie must lead to false prosperity. The emergence of love leads to zero threshold of mating rights and the false prosperity of Monogamy. Monogamy originated from ancient European aristocracy, but you can count how many illegitimate children they have. Monogamy is always deceptive because it is non-natural. In animal's world, female sits by, an apparently unconcerned beholder of the struggle, and then retires with the conqueror. I think the only reason is female animals don't believe in love, but female human does. Finally, imaginary love made women be free prostitutes while men be free whoremasters. female who sits by, an apparently unconcerned beholder of the struggle, and then retires with the conqueror. The love, as imaginary axis, seriously reduces women's ability to make rational judgments, because they begin to introduce the imaginary love into the sexes trade and can't get the real payoffs using backward induction. Westerners have created refugee mess as same as women has created mess between the sexes, because any free goods and services must interfere with the normal market economy. To be honest, the human species is very old, but people are immature. We are experiencing irrational prosperity. The imaginary axis is the bubble, and we would return to real equilibrium after the bubble collapse, that is to return to the real interests of the game. By the way, the poor are not suitable for love, but only for trading because of the very high cost of living. 

Zero threshold is bound to cause confusion. Credit consumption has become very popular at this moment in China, in order to stimulate consumption, and many manufacturers have to choose zero down payments to buy a car. Credit consumption is very short-sighted with two major disadvantages: One is to put unqualified people into the market; the other is to overdraw the future spending power. Many unqualified consumers were put into the market, and the result must be illegal parking everywhere creating traffic chaos because they are too poor to pay for parking fees. How to deal with it? Let's draw some lessons from our neighbors. To buy a car in Japan, you must be able to prove that you have a parking space reserved for that car. There is Proof-of-parking's twin: a ban on overnight parking in the streets. Beware, the police tolerates free parking in the evening (parking meters stop working at night), but after 3 am, ALL vehicles parked in parking meter car parks will be towed away. In Singapore, the government adopted the system of The Certificate of Entitlement, which is the quota license received from a successful winning bid in an open bid uniform price auction which grants the legal right of the holder to register, own and use a vehicle in Singapore for a period of 10 years. When demand is high, the cost of a COE can exceed the value of the car itself. The only purpose of COE is to endow the driving power, as a scarce resource, to a small amount of the richest persons by the high threshold. In exchange, the government can raise enough money from the rich to build public transportation for the poor. That keeps everyone happy: The rich get the right to use the road, and the poor get the cheaper traffic. This strategy applies to all countries with a large population density.

Not only should there be a threshold, but also multi-level thresholds, dividing all area into different grades. Like Rome's Colosseum, people in different rank would sit in a different location. It's called order. In ancient Babylon, the Code of Hammurabi tole people a lot of truth. Its three most important principles are Tit for Tat, inviolable private property and dividing people into three categories. The lack of these three principles is the main reason for today's social chaos. Because of the lack of threshold, lots of old people in China like to trudge on Expressway, and finally are hit by cars. Any confusion stems from there is no strict segregation. Government should establish strict orders to separate pedestrians, motor vehicles, non-motor vehicles, planes and trains. The poor and the rich should be separated, because they are willing to pay different money to buy different community services. Lowering standards inevitably results in confusion. The final evolution of society must be the establishment of a strict hierarchy, but there are strict standards and thresholds between these different levels. You can't flow freely, until you reach the strict threshold, and on the contrary, when you lose this qualification, you also have to go down to the lower level. Moreover, everyone must recognize your identity and accept the fact that you are an unqualified consumer or supplier at any given threshold by the market; otherwise it will inevitably cause confusion. The reason why social stratification is full of contradictions is that people have too much desire and too little ability. Stratum solidification is a very normal phenomenon, and you can only get chaos instead of Utopian prosperity if you cancel all the thresholds. The concept of multi-level thresholds can also be applied to food safety issues. Everyone knows the Chinese style looting on highway. There was a news that villagers looted industrial salt for eating after the truck overturns. The police and local officials tried to stop the crowds but ultimately failed. Apparently, industrial salt is inedible, but still why? In recent years, especially after China joined the WTO, the Chinese government is increasingly pandering to Western values, including food safety thresholds, so enacted food safety laws as the same high threshold as West, and as a result, only a small quantity of expensive goods enter the market. According to principle 1 of Economics: People face trade-offs. The West set the food safety threshold with 90, but there are lots of food are located between 60 and 90 in China squeezed out of the market, not up to Western standard, but higher than industrial salt. High standards are bound to lead to high prices, which makes a lot of unqualified consumers. People should be divided into various grades and ranks, and the inequality of status replaced by the inequality of wealth is definitely an improvement. According to Western food safety requirements, China does not have so much food at all. Low standards can be widely covered. Let's see how many Chinese will grab cheap and expired food in supermarkets. You told them the food were expired but they still chose to eat. Zero-threshold does more harm than this. Everyone knows that regional discrimination is very serious, especially in big cities. Beyond our condemnation, we should think about why. Before reform and open-up period, Chinese people were not free to flow from one place to another, so China was in an acquaintance society, despite the lack of law, Chinese had to control the evil of human nature; but after reform and open-up period, Chinese people are free to flow from one place to another, so China is in stranger society now, due to the lack of law and zero-threshold of entry, Chinese start to unleash their own evil. There is an old saying in China: People, who have property would trade off in long-term. You can find a common phenomenon in city that the community, where external population stay, is particularly dirty and messy. The influx of outsiders has indeed broken the balance of the original ecology. Class hierarchy needs to exist, but without class solidification, and how to trade between order and freedom is absolutely the art of compromise, and I think threshold is good strategy because it is chosen by God.  

The threshold is not constant but dynamically changing over time between countries. For example, the price is a typical threshold. The function of price is to stop consuming. The price of airplane tickets also follows this dynamic equilibrium rule: In peak-season, higher price can prevent some people taking plane; in off-season, lower price can encourage people to travel by air. Well, think about what happens if the opposite happens. Immediately lead to imbalances, so threshold should be dynamic in order to main the balance. When the roadside parking costs nothing, everyone would choose curb parking to cause congestion; when the roadside parking costs $5, all potential drivers whose benefit was less than or equal to $5 would be discouraged, while a few whose benefit was greater than $5 would continue parking. This is a common sense that the law is far from being respected, but only plays the role of a man-made threshold in order to maintain social stability. How to choose the right threshold? It depends on people’s behavior preferences over time between countries, because we have to find the right tipping point at any given time. The laws of different countries should choose different values of threshold whether in productive market or punishment market. The threshold value, as a domestic equilibrium point, is the result of the interaction of all participants in the domestic market. Any individual can not affect this threshold, they can only choose to enter or exit the market according to their opportunity costs. The United States is the only Western country currently applying the death penalty. The death penalty is in practice applied only for murder involving an aggravating factor such as multiple victims, rape, robbery, or a victim under a certain age. Capital punishment was suspended in 1967, but reinstated in 1976 forced by the high murder rate. I am firmly opposed to China's abolition of the death penalty. China now should learn from Singapore to take draconian law, instead of abolishing the death penalty. Today, Singapore still keeps the caning, which must be called a medieval penalty by the West, but I reply tersely, “A medieval penalty for a medieval deed.” China should now learn to introduce advanced technology in criminal investigation, in order to eliminate wrongly-charged cases. Lowering penalty threshold only creates arbitrage opportunities for criminals. Let me explain it to you in details. The Chinese government takes into account the cost of pregnant women in prison, so the judiciary generally does not take coercive measures against pregnant women, but just oral education. It is just because of this loophole that a woman in China had pregnancies for 14 times in 10 years to avoid punishment. Coincidentally, I saw news: Vietnamese woman escapes death penalty by getting pregnant. Under Vietnamese law, pregnant women or those with children under three years of age cannot be executed, so she has escaped execution after paying a fellow inmate to bring her a plastic bag of semen and a syringe so that she could become pregnant while on death row. I once saw a very wonderful American movie named Primal Fear, which told us how the hero uses schizophrenia to escape legal sanction. Back to nature, why did Roy act? It is because there is loophole in the law. He just took advantage of the situation for arbitraging, and cheating became his best strategy. I will always remember Roy's last words, “There never was an Aaron, counselor.” Who created this arbitrage opportunity? Mediocrity in the West. I do believe that when Schizophrenia will become a loophole, and everyone will take advantage of this loophole to arbitrage. Suddenly, I discovered Schizophrenia is great as same as Love, because it can bring some profits without any pay. Finally, I find that under the mediocrity of the west, Schizophrenia has become an umbrella of sin. I’ve read news like this: In a village of Jiangxi province, a man who has just been released from prison stabs three pupils in October 31, 2014. Even more surprising news is that some people smashed a car to get into prison for a place to sleep and eat. Why is that? It is because their freedom is worthless. Under the given prison welfare as a threshold, crime will be professionalized. Those people who have opportunity costs less than threshold will choose to get into prison. The higher opportunity cost people have, the less crime people will commit, namely, their freedom is more valuable. Similarly, the better welfare the prisons provide, the more people want to go in, namely, their freedom is worthless. This is a relative concept. Prisons in developing countries adopt a low welfare to maintain balance and vice versa. Otherwise, it will inevitably lead to imbalance. Apparently, some Chinese without any social security are more willing to go to jail because prisons can provide them with food and shelter. In the end, prisons will eventually become welfare homes. There is a big “BUT” here, based on the principle of “Everything has a cost”, they must trade liberty for the welfare of the government. Looking at this issue from another perspective, it means that all taxpayers pay for a perfect contractual society without any violence. The most luxurious prisons in the world are almost located in western developed countries, such as Sollentuna Prison in Sweden, JVA Fuhlsbuettel Prison in Germany, Justice Center Leoben in Austria, Bastoy Prison, Norway and so on and forth. I bet I would like to commit a crime if I will be sent to them. Recently, I saw a news that due to the staggeringly low rates of crime in the Netherlands, five Dutch prisons are going to be closed by autumn. The announcement comes not long after the Dutch government closed 19 of their prisons in 2013. Government officials addressed the closures by saying that the tiny country simply doesn’t have the capital to maintain such large, unoccupied facilities. I guess these Dutch prisons will be reopened after the arrival of the refugees. To be honest, their freedom is worth nothing compared with survival. They are just making arbitrage by taking advantage of the shortcoming of law, as same as refugees. Whose mistake? Who should we blame? Who created arbitrage opportunities? Of course, Arch-criminal is the stupid laws with wrong threshold. Unrealistic liberalism causes the real madman to be released from the insane asylum. The cruel murderer is released from prison. Law is to be used for people, not respect because the law is not worth respecting. The lower they are, the more they will go against the law, because they have low opportunity costs. The West has accused China of capital punishment largely from a humanitarian point of view, and many Democratic western countries have essentially replaced life sentences with death penalty. Why? That’s because the west is rich, everyone has universal health care and a perfect social system, but in China such a poor and weak country, a large number of people are living below the poverty line, so there is no extra money for a nefarious bandit. The most useless organization is the United Nations which leads the world into age of mediocrity by catering to a motley crew. If I were the ambassador of China to the United Nations, I would say that to the West, “I can send these death penalty criminals to your country for free, do you want them?” Everyone knows Murder of James Bulger in UK. James Patrick Bulger (16 March 1990-12 February 1993) was a boy from Kirkby, Merseyside, England, who was murdered on 12 February 1993, at the age of two. He was abducted, tortured and murdered by two ten-year-old boys, Robert Thompson (born 23 August 1982) and Jon Venables (born 13 August 1982). The case has prompted widespread debate on the issue of how to handle young offenders when they are sentenced or released from custody. Speaking of human rights to the perpetrators is to commit crimes against the victims. Our world has been destroyed by the two word "human rights". China is facing a hundred times worse than UK. In recent years, in order to cater to Western values, the Chinese government blindly studies the West and reduces the penalty threshold, resulting in a great deal of two injuries, and many wounding cases are related to commutation release personnel. So, the death penalty is necessary, or more innocent people will be hurt when he comes out. The Chinese government should be improved two things: One is the system of lifelong responsibility for trial cases in order to avoid wrongly-charged cases; the other is strengthening legal education. In many criminal cases, perpetrators often cause victims to die. Why? Many Chinese are ignorant of the law, and they don't weigh problems from backward induction, because they don't know what kind of punishment he will receive from varying degrees of illegality. You will find a truth: fight terror with terror, and fight rogue with rogue. So-called the generosity of the authorities is only an illusion because mercy for someone is at the expense of others instead of itself. The biggest mistake the West has made is to try to unify these different thresholds of these different countries. 

Arbitrage

According to the investment theory, as long as there are two kinds of prices in the market, you can get risk-free profit by buying cheap and selling dear at same time called arbitrage. Here I give you a classical example: World Cup 2018 Betting Odds. In one of the highly anticipated matches Germany vs Mexico, a British Bookmaker William Hill offers 1.5 odds on a German victory, 4.2 odds on a draw and 7.5 odds on Mexico victory; a Chinese bookmaker offers 1.24 odds on a German victory, 4.8 odds on a draw and 8.7 odds on Mexico victory. Here are two questions for you. Q1: Why do domestic bookmaker and foreign bookmaker offer different odds? The answer is there are much more Chinese bookies who believe Germany will win than the British bookies, so Chinese bookmaker passively adjust their odds, otherwise they will face great risks if Germany wins, they will lose a lot of money. The odds of 1.24, as a result, are just a domestic equilibrium price, which is determined by domestic aggregate supply and domestic aggregate demand both, instead of by Chinese bookmaker. Q2: Is there an arbitrage opportunity? Maybe not, it is because there are some other problems about taxes and return rates, I have no calculation, but I guess there is no arbitrage opportunity, because any arbitrage is a loophole in any system, free entry and exit will gradually swallow up this loophole and pull two prices into a new equilibrium price as soon as possible. Similarly, the same is true of the population problem. When the world is in racial segregation, each nation has its own domestic equilibrium price which is determined by domestic aggregate supply and domestic aggregate demand both. In different ecological environment, the same behavior reproduction has negative externalities during one nation while have positive externalities during another nation. When racial segregation is cancelled, due to two different price there, the rational people begin to arbitrage. There are only two results: One is to break the balance of another civilization; the other is to break the balance of local civilization. Everyone knows that Europe are suffering the biggest refugee crisis. Why does this happen? Who is to blame for it? Europe itself. The United States led Europe to overthrow the dictator in Middle East for human rights. How altruistic that sounds! But the result hurt Europe. Why did the United States avoid the refugee crisis? Geographical position. God is an American, two oceans in the East and West, no strong enemy in the North and South. But Europe is not so lucky that Europe is connected to Asia on one hand, and one the other hand there is only a calm Mediterranean between Europe and Africa. Because of the different positions, they should adopt a completely different strategy. I think Europe would not only send troops, but also stop the U.S. troops if there is regret medicine. Unfortunately, there is no regret medicine! There is an old saying in China: 90 percent of all bad things come from good intentions. After the dictator's death, Europe's nightmare began. Who created arbitrage opportunity? Europe itself. You can't blame the refugees because they just are arbitrage taking the advantage of the situation. If you send me 2000 pounds a month, I would go too. You may say the western environment will eventually change their choice, but most people are governed by inertia. In other words, there is time lag between the change of interest and the change of choice, because the consequences of a false choice will take some time to pass on to themselves. Genes also have this lag, and for example everyone knows that the human tail gene is no longer synthesized by wasting amino acids, and this is because the genes of the tail are already useless to humans from a long-term point of view. In short, I don't want to waste any amino acids on something useless for me. The clitoris is useless for women as same as nipple is useless for men, but why gene chooses to synthesize them? From an interest perspective, this is definitely a waste, but still why? In gene's long journey down the generations therefore, an average gene will spend approximately half its time sitting in male bodies, and the other half sitting in female bodies. In other words, genes are also governed by inertia and can't figure out very clear which is useful and which is useless in the short-term. But this lag is fatal for the West, because population reproduction is an exponential function, it means Middle East race will grow to a fixed level during time lag in Europe. The only benefit of the refugees is to lower the equilibrium price of reproduction, and the government can subsidize less or not subsidize reproduction to maintain a balanced population. The fatal consequence is the race invasion because the decline in equilibrium price will push some marginal white people out of the reproductive market. Unlike other international trade, the special nature of the reproductive market determines that the supplier of population is equal to the invaders. As the one nation becomes rarer and rarer, the other becomes more and more frequent, till the one replaces the other. In short, in the next two hundred years, whiles will be less and less, while the Middle East people will be more and more in Europe. Have you ever wondered why blacks always object to apartheid, and whites always support apartheid? The reason is very simple, nothing to do with fairness and justice: as same as international trade, the change of rules must create new winners and losers. In other words, blacks object to apartheid because most of them would be the new winners of desegregation; whites support apartheid because most of them would be the new losers of desegregation. The issue of refugees is essentially a racial invasion in the guise of “Human Rights”. All of the above are discussing how to break the balance of another civilization, and next I give you an example in reality to illustrate how to break the balance of local civilization. Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela, who is considered by many to be the father of South Africa, was an anti-Apartheid activist, which means that fought, of course under the guise of “Freedom, Equality and Justice”, for those who were disadvantaged by the system of racial segregation. Every revolution is under the guise of freedom and equality, but the fact is no one under the world, including me, really knows the real meanings of the freedom, equality and justice. The different between you and me is I know I don't know, but you don't know you don't know that is the most lethal. I follow Jacques Monod to say a word, “A curious aspect of the theory of Freedom, Equality and Justice is that everybody thinks he understands it.” He was fighting for peace, but it turns out South Africans are worse off than they were before the end of apartheid, at least as measured by real incomes, and average incomes of South African men and women fell by about 40 percent between 1995 and 2000, and that there has been little improvement since then. He liberated the black people, but he also dragged the black people into a more miserable situation. In 1993 Mandela was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to move South Africa away from apartheid towards a multi-racial democracy. It turns out this prize is worthless. According to latest news, South Africa white farmer land grabs will be LAW after change to constitution approved. A politician declared, “Your time is up, white people.” Contract civilization is at stake in South Africa, and the proletariat has won again. This time, instead of resorting to violence, they resorted to the Constitution. If China also practices democracy now, there will be another victory for the proletariat. What a horrible thing! This is the main reason why I oppose China's democracy now. I am not a member of the K.K.K. party but I have to admit Pekingese and Tibetan Mastiff need different environments for living because they are the result of a long-term election of their own environment. We must admit we are in different equilibriums and the west civilization is in a more advanced equilibrium. In order to enjoy the civilization of the westerners, we must learn the material and spiritual civilization from the West to filling the gap orbitals between us. There are only two ways for higher civilization to treat lower civilization in short run: Massacre and segregation. Before this, segregation is only conservative and stable strategy ever. Rational choices can lead to bad outcomes because there is no communism at all. In human evolution history, there is a common mis-cognition that before you have the ability to bring people enter the next equilibrium you have already break ongoing equilibrium. The chaos of the world is due to the overflow of morality and humanitarianism. Universal love and the welfare of the species as a whole are concepts that simply do not make evolutionary sense. Anyway, the west decided to remove the dictator for some certain purpose, but in a large and complex system of rivalries, removing one rival from the scene does not necessarily do any good: other rivals may be more likely to benefit from his death than oneself, so the result is Antistokes degeneration. In other words, they end up worse off than they were before. Dictatorship is not the best situation, but it is definitely not the worst. Here I have an opinion different from Darwin. Darwin wrote the following words in his book of Origin of species :

In another and more general manner, new species become superior to their predecessors; for they have to beat in the struggle for life all the older forms, with which they come into close competition. We may therefore conclude that if under a nearly similar climate the eocene inhabitants of the world could be put into competition with the existing inhabitants, the former would be beaten and exterminated by the latter, as would the secondary by the eocene, and the palaeozoic by the secondary forms…. We must believe, that if all the animals and plants of Great Britain were set free in New Zealand, a multitude of British forms would in the course of time become thoroughly naturalized there, and would exterminate many of the natives…. But after very long intervals of time, and after great geographical changes, permitting much intermigration, the feebler will yield to the more dominant forms, and there will be nothing immutable in the distribution of organic beings…. We can understand how it is that dominant forms which spread widely and yield the greatest number of varieties tend to people the world with allied, but modified, descendants; and these will generally succeed in displacing the groups which are their inferiors in the struggle for existence. Hence, after long intervals of time, the productions of the world appear to have changed simultaneously…. The inhabitants of the world at each successive period in its history have beaten their predecessors in the race for life, and are, in so far, higher in the scale, and their structure has generally become more specialised; and this may account for the common belief held by so many palaeontologists, that organisation on the whole has progressed…. On the other hand, all the chief laws of palaeontology plainly proclaim, as it seems to me, that species have been produced by ordinary generation: old forms having been supplanted by new and improved forms of life, the products of variation and the survival of the fittest. 

The rule, that superiors will generally succeed in displacing the groups which are their inferiors in the struggle for existence, does not apply to the present human civilization, because human beings have human rights, but animals do not have animal rights. In animal world, the winners don't believe in tears, and the losers are eliminated in the world forever, but in human world, the winners believe in tears, and the losers must use their tears to cheat. Western mediocrity must lead to a result that bad money drives out good. As the environment changes, the higher the organism, the more likely it is to become extinct. Nuclear weapons can eliminate humans, dinosaurs, tigers and elephants, but not cockroaches. The survival of lower organisms is much stronger than higher organisms. Now you could notice that war is not the worst thing on the world, and peace is not the best thing. Please be rational to view the relationship between war and peace. Nevertheless so profound is our ignorance, and so high our presumption, that we marvel when we hear of the extinction of an organic being; and as we do not see the cause, we invoke cataclysms to desolate the world, or invent laws on the duration of the forms of life! All things have cause and effect while all living beings have its own lot. Don't try to replace God's role to change another's lot. That is very stupid and naive. In violence civilization, death was the punishment of defeat and life the prize of victory, but in modern western civilization, death is the punishment of victory and life the prize of defeat. Whether human should artificially put out forest fires has always been a controversial topic so far. In my opinion, I regard the forest fires as God's will if it is made by nature instead of human being. Some lives still can benefit from the forest fires while some lives were eliminated by the forest fires. It was the will of God who is a pragmatist. Pragmatism has been hailed with approbation as the Western behavioral characteristic, but they have deviated from this principle. Don't be foolishly easy to change it, because you don't know where the next equilibrium is. The West is not aware of the seriousness of the problem because the refugees want not only the survival rights, but also mating rights and reproductive rights. From the point of ESS, Merkel's strategy is not an evolutionary stable strategy because it can be invaded by any nasty strategy. If Merkel goes on, Germany will change its name to Germanstan and the Germanic nation will disappear in about two hundred years. I am not alarmist. According to the report of Islamic Saturation of Countries: A Critical Point from Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI), historical data suggests that without violence or external forces, no countries recovered from becoming completely Islamized after crossing this critical point of 10%. We used this critical point as a metric for the saturation speed and applied mathematical modeling validated on historical data to predict near future of a few European countries. This study shows that throughout history reaching the critical point of 10% Muslim population took about 100 years. Nowadays this trend is 2.3 times faster. They conclude that Countries with Muslim community around 5% (Germany, Belgium, UK, Sweden and The Netherlands) are going to reach this point in 7-17 years from today. Recent mass immigration excluded. France has already reached this critical point around 2011. Who is the culprit? These idiots, like Merkels, they just pass on the costs from one person to another instead of eliminating the costs. There is another funny news recently: Dresden-based migrant relief organization 'Mission Lifeline' posted a controversial tweet in January 28, 2019, “You're not married yet? Maybe you could fall in love with someone who doesn't have the right to stay here? Could happen, right? Stay open.” Suddenly I found that Germans were silly and cute. Love is indeed the greatest cult. Because at any point in time, the total supply of society is certain, depending on its supplies of labor, capital, and natural resources and on the available technology used to turn these factors of production into goods and services. These refugees with no skills, no knowledge, as freeloader, want to get free food and free drink instead of make contribution. In other words, your irrational interference with the market will only pass on the costs from new winners to new losers. There will be more and more people who use humanitarianism to arbitrage until the profit is zero. The city of Portland in Maine cities confronts loss of aid to asylum seekers. Without legislative action, Portland's City Council will have a painful decision to make: either approve a significant tax increase to cover the full cost of the aid or cut off General Assistance to nearly 1,000 city residents who cannot otherwise afford housing and basic needs. What poor taxpayers in Maine! They will become new victims. It depends on the ability of individuals to pass on costs. There is no so-called strictly win-win game, but only how to split the surplus or how to pass on the costs to third party. For example: jump the queue. The essence of jumping the queue is that queue jumper benefit at the expense of the last person because seats are limited. Here is another point of view about zero sum and nonzero sum games I disagree with Dawkins. Dawkins believed that, in the game of Prisoner's dilemma, if the two players could reach an agreement privately, they would turn the 'zero sum' into 'nonzero sum', and furthermore, many zero sum games, including divorce case and football relegation, would be turned into nonzero sum games under some certain conditions. Let's recall some details first in The Selfish Gene :

Games theorists divide games into 'zero sum' and 'nonzero sum'. A zero sum game is one in which a win for one player is a loss for the other. Chess is zero sum, because the aim of each player is to win, and this means to make the other player lose. Prisoner's Dilemma, however, is a nonzero sum game. There is a banker paying out money, and it is possible for the two players to link arms and laugh all the way to the bank…. In what are called civil 'disputes' there is often in fact great scope for cooperation. What looks like a zero sum confrontation can, with a little goodwill, be transformed into a mutually beneficial nonzero sum game. Consider divorce. A good marriage is obviously a nonzero sum game, brimming with mutual cooperation. But even when it breaks down there are all sorts of reasons why a couple could benefit by continuing to cooperate, and treating their divorce, too, as nonzero sum. As if child welfare were not a sufficient reason, the fees of two lawyers will make a nasty dent in the family finances…. In separate chambers but with one voice, the two lawyers immediately start referring to 'us' and 'them'. 'Us', you understand, doesn't mean me and my wife; it means me and my lawyer against her and her lawyer. When the case comes to court, it is actually listed as 'Smith versus Smith'! It is assumed to be adversarial, whether the couple feel adversarial or not, whether or not they have specifically agreed that they want to be sensibly amicable. And who benefits from treating it as an 'I win, you lose' tussle? The chances are, only the lawyers…. The hapless couple have been dragged into a zero sum game. For the lawyers, however, the case of Smith v. Smith is a nice fat nonzero sum game, with the Smiths providing the payoffs and the two professionals milking their clients' joint account in elaborately coded cooperation. One way in which they cooperate is to make proposals that they both know the other side will not accept. This prompts a counter proposal that, again, both know is unacceptable. And so it goes on. Every letter, every telephone call exchanged between the cooperating 'adversaries' adds another wad to the bill. With luck, this procedure can be dragged out for months or even years, with costs mounting in parallel. The lawyers don't get together to work all this out. On the contrary, it is ironically their scrupulous separateness that is the chief instrument of their cooperation at the expense of the clients. The lawyers may not even be aware of what they are doing. Like the vampire bats that we shall meet in a moment, they are playing to well-ritualized rules. The system works without any conscious overseeing or organizing. It is all geared to forcing us into zero sum games. Zero sum for the clients, but very much nonzero sum for the lawyers.

Football is a zero sum game. At least, it usually is. Occasionally it can become a nonzero sum game. This happened in 1977 in the English Football League (Association Football or 'Soccer'; the other games called football—Rugby Football, Australian Football, American Football, Irish Football, etc., are also normally zero sum games). Teams in the Football League are split into four divisions. Clubs play against other clubs within their own division, accumulating points for each win or draw throughout the season. To be in the First Division is prestigious, and also lucrative for a club since it ensures large crowds. At the end of each season, the bottom three clubs in the First Division are relegated to the Second Division for the next season. Relegation seems to be regarded as a terrible fate, worth going to great efforts to avoid…. May 18th 1977 was the last day of that year's football season. Two of the three relegations from the First Division had already been determined, but the third relegation was still in contention. It would definitely be one of three teams, Sunderland, Bristol, or Coventry. These three teams, then, had everything to play for on that Saturday. Sunderland were playing against a fourth team (whose tenure in the First Division was not in doubt). Bristol and Coventry happened to be playing against each other. It was known that, if Sunderland lost their game, then Bristol and Coventry needed only to draw against each other in order to stay in the First Division. But if Sunderland won, then the team relegated would be either Bristol or Coventry, depending on the outcome of their game against each other. The two crucial games were theoretically simultaneous. As a matter of fact, however, the Bristol-Coventry game happened to be running five minutes late. Because of this, the result of the Sunderland game became known before the end of the Bristol-Coventry game. Thereby hangs this whole complicated tale…. For most of the game between Bristol and Coventry the play was, to quote one contemporary news report, 'fast and often furious', an exciting (if you like that sort of thing) ding-dong battle. Some brilliant goals from both sides had seen to it that the score was 2-all by the eightieth minute of the match. Then, two minutes before the end of the game, the news came through from the other ground that Sunderland had lost. Immediately, the Coventry team manager had the news flashed up on the giant electronic message board at the end of the ground. Apparently all 22 players could read, and they all realized that they needn't bother to play hard any more. A draw was all that either team needed in order to avoid relegation. Indeed, to put effort into scoring goals was now positively bad policy since, by taking players away from defence, it carried the risk of actually losing—and being relegated after all. Both sides became intent on securing a draw. To quote the same news report: 'Supporters who had been fierce rivals seconds before when Don Gillies fired in an 80th minute equaliser for Bristol, suddenly joined in a combined celebration. Referee Ron Challis watched helpless as the players pushed the ball around with little or no challenge to the man in possession.' What had previously been a zero sum game had suddenly, because of a piece of news from the outside world, become a nonzero sum game. In the terms of our earlier discussion, it is as if an external 'banker' had magically appeared, making it possible for both Bristol and Coventry to benefit from the same outcome, a draw…. Spectator sports like football are normally zero sum games for a good reason. It is more exciting for crowds to watch players striving mightily against one another than to watch them conniving amicably. But real life, both human life and plant and animal life, is not set up for the benefit of spectators. Many situations in real life are, as a matter of fact, equivalent to nonzero sum games. Nature often plays the role of 'banker', an4 individuals can therefore benefit from one another's success. They do not have to do down rivals in order to benefit themselves. Without departing from the fundamental laws of the selfish gene, we can see how cooperation and mutual assistance can flourish even in a basically selfish world. We can see how, in Axelrod's meaning of the term, nice guys may finish first. 

I really don't agree with him on this point and let me give my reasons one by one. In my opinion, whether zero sum game issue or not depends on the boundaries of your vision or the scope you have. In the game of prisoner's dilemma. Dawkins believed that, if both choose cooperation, each one would be better off, so the zero sum game can be turned into nonzero sum game. Dawkins's mistake is absurd because he did not take into account the interests of bankers. In other words, if you take into account the interests of bankers, you will find that the essence of seemingly nonzero-sum game between two people is a zero-sum game between three people. Their cooperation, actually viewed as a collusion or a cartel, can really benefit two of them at the same time, but at the expense of bankers. As same as oligopolies, this collusion is good for the two players, but it is bad from the standpoint of society as a whole, and the prisoners' dilemma is a dilemma for the prisoners, but it can be a boon to everyone else. In the past few hundred years, laws have been enacted in western legal systems to prevent such collusion. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and the Clayton Act of 1914 are both anti-trust acts, and the former elevated agreements among oligopolists from an unenforceable contract to a criminal conspiracy, and the latter further strengthened the antitrust laws. Similarly, the essence of marriage is a transaction which can make both better off. During any transaction, any seller and buyer have to cooperate which can be called nonzero sum game, but there is competition between them how to split the whole surpluses which can be called zero sum game. The essence of any transaction is how to share the surplus between buyers and sellers. To be honest, for a family, total income and total cost are certain. If you do a little more housework, I will do less. The best strategy for both of them should be to let your partner work more and spend less. When divorce, the alliance between husband and wife has collapsed. That is to say, divorce is the last one shot game in which you can no longer get anything in return from each other in the future. Like that squabbling among cartel members over how to divide the profit in the market can make agreement among them difficult, In order to maximize my own interests, I must hire a lawyer to help me, because I know her lawyer and she would devour some of my interests if I give up the employment lawyer. Now, the zero sum game between the two people becomes a zero sum game between four people. Because the number of property has not changed, they must have less. It is only when both sides are rational and share common knowledge that lawyers are not introduced to divide property. The problem of football relegation is more obvious. The number of relegations is certain, and the only problem is how to allocate. We can only say that Sunderland did not control his fate in his own hands, and Bristol and Coventry transfer the costs to Sunderland through collusion. Such tacit agreement is still on the stage. In the 2018 Russia world cup group H, in the last round Japan and Poland have reached a tacit understanding after Poland 1-0 leads Japan and both know Colombia's simultaneous 1-0 victory over Senegal in Samara. What had previously been a zero sum game had suddenly, because of a piece of news from the outside world, become a nonzero sum game. In the terms of our earlier discussion, it is as if an external 'banker' had magically appeared, making it possible for both Poland and Japan to benefit from the same outcome 1-0. Does the zero sum game become a nonzero sum game magically? Of course not. The so-called nonzero sum game does not eliminate costs, but transfers costs to other people. There is an old saying about this collusion, “Don't tax you, don't tax me. Tax that fellow behind the tree.” This logic is obvious, because at a certain point of time, the social aggregate supply, including the total products and services of society, are fixed, because it depends on its supplies of labor, capital, and natural resources and on the available technology used to turn these factors of production into goods and services, so the only remaining problem is how to divide these fixed products and services with whom, and then the stage is set for a political battle including lies which are also a kind of politics. There is a famous saying, “Politics requires sacrifice; the sacrifice of others, of course.” Deception is an eternal and stable strategy in human evolution and will run through human history. Just as polygamy is essentially a zero-sum game between men and men, monogamy, under the premise that sex ratio is 1:1, becomes a nonzero sum game between men and men because they do not take into account the interests of women. Do you remember the case in Microeconomics that good news for farming can be bad news for farmers? As same as externalities, zero sum game and non-zero sum game are reciprocal. When analyzing any policy, it is important to keep in mind that what is good for some people is not necessarily good for society as a whole. The same logic applies to the revelation of truth. Not everyone wants to see the truth of female orgasm, because it makes P-V model lose its legitimacy, but it is surely good for women. Dawkins made a common mistake called the broken window fallacy. Let's review some knowledge in Microeconomics: 

Little in the literature seems more relevant to contemporary economic debates than what usually is called the broken window fallacy. Whenever a government program is justified not on its merits but by the jobs it will create, remember the broken window: Some teenagers, being the little beasts that they are, toss a brick through a bakery window. A crowd gathers and laments, “What a shame.” But before you know it, someone suggests a silver lining to the situation: Now the baker will have to spend money to have the window repaired. This will add to the income of the repairman, who will spend his additional income, which will add to another seller’s income, and so on. You know the drill. The chain of spending will multiply and generate higher income and employment. If the broken window is large enough, it might produce an economic boom!... Most voters fall for the broken window fallacy, but not economics majors. They will say, “Hey, wait a minute!” If the baker hadn’t spent his money on window repair, he would have spent it on the new suit he was saving to buy. Then the tailor would have the new income to spend, and so on. The broken window didn’t create net new spending; it just diverted spending from somewhere else. The broken window does not create new activity, just different activity. People see the activity that takes place. They don’t see the activity that would have taken place…. The broken window fallacy is perpetuated in many forms. Whenever job creation or retention is the primary objective I call it the job-counting fallacy. Economics majors understand the non-intuitive reality that real progress comes from job destruction. It once took 90 percent of our population to grow our food. Now it takes 3 percent. Pardon me, Willie, but are we worse off because of the job losses in agriculture? The would have-been farmers are now college professors and computer gurus…. So instead of counting jobs, we should make every job count. We will occasionally hit a soft spot when we have a mismatch of supply and demand in the labor market. But that is temporary. Don’t become a Luddite and destroy the machinery, or become a protectionist and try to grow bananas in New York City. 

Dawkins fell for the broken window fallacy as well and believed nature often plays the role of 'banker', so lots of game would be nonzero sum game. I think Dawkins only see the activity that takes place, but he does not see the activity that would have taken place. In short, he ignores the opportunity cost. The essence of many policies is to transfer costs at the expense of other people's interests. The Microeconomics tells us society faces a short-run trade-off between inflation and unemployment. Why is that? The essence of unemployment is to kick the unqualified suppliers out of the labor market, and the essence of inflation is to turn these unqualified suppliers into qualified buyers of products and services. Let's go back to the key point that all the concessions of the authorities, all from all, based on you cannot completely eliminate them. There are no absolute good things or bad things in the world, and no matter what happens, someone can gain from it while someone must loss from it. In my eyes, there are only two things in the world: One is how to split the interests; the other is how to share the costs. Any sudden incident will change the current pattern of interests, no matter it is a lie or a truth. Merkel's mistake was that she transferred costs instead of eliminating them because of her ignorance and naïve. Human evolution requires sacrifice. The sacrifice of who is important. Lies and victims are necessary, because these, as same as taxes, are the costs we pay for civilized society, and the key question is who will pay. 

From a genetic perspective, what is a winner? The winner means who can survive and breed successfully as much as possible, instead of who can manufacture Mercedes Benz, BMW or Audi. Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and so on those island countries generally have the most stringent rules of entry, and they are forbidden to bring all seeds and live animals. Why? Any weaker species will explosive grow when it is suitable for survival without natural enemies. Here I give you some similar examples. You can find that kangaroo, as a special species, only appears in Australia, but there are no giant animals like tigers and lions in Australia. Why is that? Because of natural segregation made by continental drift, Australian plate was isolated from Asian plate, so you can't bring any tigers or lions to Australia, or you are making new winners and losers artificially. Let us imagine Australian plate goes back to Asian plate. What will happen? Is this just to the kangaroo? There is no problem of just, but only the problem of new winners and new losers. In the early days of the settlement of Australia, enterprising settlers unwisely introduced the European rabbit. Such wild rabbit populations are a serious mammalian pest and invasive species in Australia causing millions of dollars of damage to crops. Their spread was enhanced probably through the emergence of strong crossbreeds. Various methods in the 20th century have been attempted to control the Australian rabbit population. Conventional methods include shooting rabbits and destroying their warrens, but these had only limited success. In 1907, a rabbit-proof fence was built in Western Australia in an unsuccessful attempt to contain the rabbits. The myxoma virus, which causes myxomatosis, was introduced into the rabbit population in the 1950s and had the effect of severely reducing the rabbit population. Can I say you infringe on the breeding rights of rabbits? In addition to Australia, the United States has encountered this kind of invasion: Asian carp in North America. Asian carp are a voracious and destructive invasive species threatening the survival of native fishes and the health of America's waterways. Germany also suffered crawfish invasion. Germany has decided on a novel approach to dealing with its "crayfish plague''. Berliners will now be allowed to eat crawfish. Every year after mating season, Cuba must encounter crabs’ invasion. Female land crabs migrate from their forest home to the coastline in order to release their eggs into the Caribbean Sea. The smell of crushed crab is everywhere, and their shells damage car tires. Despite being smashed by cars and pedestrians, they still complete their long journey for species survival. To be honest, any creature is very scary when spread unchecked including human beings. Rats are the most dirty creatures on the face of this planet, carriers of various viruses and bacteria such as Tuberculosis and other pests that cause Dysentery. People in many countries do not eat rats, but people in the country of Vietnam eat rat as a delicacy. Destitute Indians also eat rats. The reason is very simple: people face tradeoffs between life and death. Poor people do what they must to survive. Before we arrived trade civilization, which can make both better off, white people can use their weapons to destroy yellow and black people completely, as same as Homo sapiens chose to kill Homo neanderthalensis tens of thousands of years ago. Some scholars believe that the Homo sapiens have assimilated Homo neanderthalensis. I don't know they are killed or assimilated, if the latter is true, I bet that must be the contribution of Neanderthal women instead of men. For the problem of fusion, you have only two strategies: Kill them or assimilate them. If you choose the latter, you must adopt the strategy of “Trading space for time” and the strategy of “Segregation” in short-run because it takes time and process to turn them into us, but unfortunately West chose neither. Darwin also explained the relationship between invasion and balance in his book of Origin of species：

If the country were open on its borders, new forms would certainly immigrate, and this would likewise seriously disturb the relations of some of the former inhabitants. Let it be remembered how powerful the influence of a single introduced tree or mammal has been shown to be. But in the case of an island, or of a country partly surrounded by barriers, into which new and better adapted forms could not freely enter, we should then have places in the economy of nature which would assuredly be better filled up if some of the original inhabitants were in some manner modified; for, had the area been open to immigration, these same places would have been seized on by intruders…. We have good reason to believe, as shown in the first chapter, that changes in the conditions of life give a tendency to increased variability; and in the foregoing cases the conditions the changed, and this would manifestly be favourable to natural selection, by affording a better chance of the occurrence of profitable variations. Unless such occur, natural selection can do nothing. Under the term of "variations," it must never be forgotten that mere individual differences are included. As man can produce a great result with his domestic animals and plants by adding up in any given direction individual differences, so could natural selection, but far more easily from having incomparably longer time for action. For as all the inhabitants of each country are struggling together with nicely balanced forces, extremely slight modifications in the structure or habits of one species would often give it an advantage over others; and still further modifications of the same kind would often still further increase the advantage, as long as the species continued under the same conditions of life and profited by similar means of subsistence and defence. No country can be named in which all the native inhabitants are now so perfectly adapted to each other and to the physical conditions under which they live, that none of them could be still better adapted or improved; for in all countries, the natives have been so far conquered by naturalised productions that they have allowed some foreigners to take firm possession of the land. And as foreigners have thus in every country beaten some of the natives, we may safely conclude that the natives might have been modified with advantage, so as to have better resisted the intruders…. if any one species does not become modified and improved in a corresponding degree with its competitors it will be exterminated…. Hence, rare species will be less quickly modified or improved within any given period; they will consequently be beaten in the race for life by the modified and improved descendants of the commoner species…. From these several considerations I think it inevitably follows, that as new species in the course of time are formed through natural selection, others will become rarer and rarer, and finally extinct…. this is shown to be the case by so many native forms in many quarters of the world having yielded their places to intruding foreigners. 

After the refugees invaded, the native inhabitants will become rarer and rarer because they were unqualified suppliers in the reproductive market. Do you remember the Indian massacre in American history? Geocide of indigenous Americans, the huge and precipitous decline in native populations in the Americas after European arrival. Now the roles seem to be reversed. The native inhabitants become the white, whereas the invaders Middle East and North Africa refugees. Is it karma? It is generally known that Chinese women like to go to the United States or Canada to give birth to their children. Why? Why don't they go to Africa? It is because they are not stupid, and they are arbitrage. Like the refugee problem in Europe, who gives them the opportunity to arbitrage? it is not hard to answer: American and Canadian laws. There are two principles of Birthright Citizenship: Jus soli & Jus Sanguinis. Jus soli is a Latin term that means law of the soil. Many countries follow the system of jus soli or more commonly known as, birthright citizenship. Under this concept, citizenship of a person is determined by the place where a person was born. Jus sanguinis is when a person acquires citizenship through their parents or ancestors. Many nations have a mixture of jus sanguinis and jus soli, including the United States, Canada, Israel, Greece, Ireland, and recently Germany. Today France only narrowly applies jus sanguinis, but it is still the most common means of passing on citizenship in many continental European countries. The U.S. follows the jus soli system to determine citizenship, which can be traced back to the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution what provides that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens. In my view, Jus soli and Jus Sanguinis resort to different interest subjects. The former resorts to the individual interest, the latter to genetic interest. Our evolutionary history is a process how individual interests gradually replace genetic interests, and also a process how selfish genes make concessions step by step. I would talk about God weigh when the two conflicts with each other later. It is because of this loophole that the Chinese go to the United States or Canada to give birth for arbitrage.“There is nothing in the law that makes it illegal for pregnant women to enter the United States,” said a spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Canada is one of the few developed countries, along with the United States, that grants birthright citizenship. According to the Canadian news report, the number of Chinese residents in Vancouver has grown to more than 18 percent over the last 20 years. 295 of the 1,938 babies born at the hospital in Richmond over the last year were born to Chinese mothers, a number that has increased significantly since 2011, although it’s unclear how much it's gone up. Health authorities in Canada do not typically record the nationalities of patients. According to a news release from Citizenship and Immigration Canada in 2014, there were fewer than 500 reported cases of a child being born in Canada to parents who were neither a citizen or permanent resident. In July 2016, health ministry investigators in B.C. counted 26 in the province—a threefold increase since 2009. While no such data has been made public for Ontario, Sunnybrook hospital in Toronto also reported an increase in foreign births in 2015, receiving women from China, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. In 2013, Montreal authorities said women from Haiti and French-speaking northern African countries “frequently” arrived to give birth in Canada. The excuse of all arbitragers is like this “I am here to give my kids better options, clean water, clean air, best education, a safe childhood and reliable medical care.” The real purpose is to access to quality education and public healthcare. In other words, they are taking advantage of Canada's public subsidy system because of reproduction has been a positive externality in Canada I have mentioned in Figure 6.4. Birth tourism creates this opportunity for arbitrage. To be honest, it is big risky for current taxpayers because this is a game with sunk cost that if the baby is going to use a lot of public subsidy in Canada, but there is no commitment that the baby will become a Canadian legal taxpayer when he grows up in future. In other words, the best response for poor guys is to grow up in a country with high welfare and emigrate to a country with low welfare when he gets capable and rich because now emigrant become his dominant strategy, which must converge to an equilibrium state after the long-term consequences that in the end Canada is full of poor and incapable people who just want to take instead of giving. This is a common thing in the newspaper that the rich chose to emigrate for tax avoidance. Ikea founder Ingvar Kamprad left Sweden in the 1970s in protest at the country’s high taxes, setting up residence in Switzerland. Swedish taxes once accounted for half of GDP. "At that time, the tax regime was very restrictive," Ikea said. Sweden's centre-right coalition government has chipped away at the country’s generous welfare system during its nearly two terms in office, trimming income taxes and abolishing a wealth tax, and then Ingvar Kamprad moves back to Sweden after 40 years in Switzerland in 2013. The French government announced on 28 September 2012, a series of measures that would significantly increase the taxes borne by wealthy individuals, with some of the proposed increases to apply to income earned from 1 January 2012. Unfortunately, this farce of robbing the rich and helping the poor lasted for only 2 years. For the same reason, British chose withdrawal from the European Union. I am going too far, let's go back to the problem of birth tourism. Recently, I saw a news: A Chinese pregnant woman run away after giving birth in Vancouver and owe the hospital over million 800 thousand. Frankly speaking, she is not birth tourist but birth arbitrager or birth terrorist as same as Cuckoo who deposits her egg and disappears. From the point of ESS, Birth tourism is not an evolutionary stable strategy because it can be invaded by any nasty strategy. You can see why the tax revenue in China needs to be controlled at the source and why the hospital requires the patient to pay the money first. Everything is a compelled counter-strategy. All in all, don't forget an important lesson from Game Theory: Do not play a strictly dominated strategy. I recently saw another piece of news that Trump plans to sign an executive order to terminate birthright citizenship. This order will inevitably lead to bankruptcy of all Chinese maternity hotel in Chinatown in America, and the beneficiaries will be those Chinese who have become citizens of the United States. New losers and winners will arise. It is not wrong that the rich Chinese are willing to emigrate to the United States or Canada to pursue a better environment. It is because the poor have low evaluation of the environment, and the rich have a high evaluation of the environment. The greater the gap is between the rich and the poor, the greater they demand for external living conditions. Now, it is difficult for whole society to form a common understanding. Segregation is necessary, otherwise chaos will inevitably arise. The key problem is you have to pay for it because your initial position is not in the US and your entry will dilute the welfare of American citizens. That is just a deal, and American should figure out a problem, namely, “who is useful to me and who is most useful to me?” and then find an equilibrium point by setting a dynamic threshold to kick off unqualified people. If I were the president of America, I would be only interested in two kinds of people: The talented and the rich. Western and Northern Europe are now communist countries, and China is a real capitalist country. Only communist countries will create arbitrage opportunities because Nice guys seem bound to decrease in numbers: niceness dies a Darwinian death, because only the strategy of “Tit for Tat” is a stable one. Let us review the two strategies Sucker and Cheat in Dawkins's Selfish gene :

Suckers groom anybody who needs it, indiscriminately. Cheats accept altruism from suckers, but they never groom anybody else, not even somebody who has previously groomed them…. Cheat genes will therefore start to spread through the population. Sucker genes will soon be driven to extinction. This is because, no matter what the ratio in the population, cheats will always do better than suckers…. But still, cheats will be doing better than suckers because they are getting all the benefits—such as they are—and paying nothing back…. But now, suppose there is a third strategy called Grudger. Grudgers groom strangers and individuals who have previously groomed them. However, if any individual cheats them, they remember the incident and bear a grudge: they refuse to groom that individual in the future…. When the proportion of cheats reaches 90 per cent, the average pay-off for all individuals will be very low: many of both types may by now be dying of the infection carried by the ticks. But still the cheats will be doing better than the suckers. Even if the whole population declines toward extinction, there will never be any time when suckers do better than cheats. Therefore, as long as we consider only these two strategies, nothing can stop the extinction of the suckers and, very probably, the extinction of the whole population too…. Once the grudgers manage to build up in numbers so that they reach a critical proportion, however, their chance of meeting each other becomes sufficiently great to off-set their wasted effort in grooming cheats. When this critical proportion is reached they will start to average a higher pay-off than cheats, and the cheats will be driven at an accelerating rate towards extinction…. Grudger does indeed turn out to be an evolutionarily stable strategy against sucker and cheat, in the sense that, in a population consisting largely of grudgers, neither cheat nor sucker will invade…. The first thing that happens is a dramatic crash in the population of suckers as the cheats ruthlessly exploit them. The cheats enjoy a soaring population explosion, reaching their peak just as the last sucker perishes. But the cheats still have the grudgers to reckon with. During the precipitous decline of the suckers, the grudgers have been slowly decreasing in numbers, taking a battering from the prospering cheats, but just managing to hold their own. After the last sucker has gone and the cheats can no longer get away with selfish exploitation so easily, the grudgers slowly begin to increase at the cheats' expense. Steadily their population rise gathers momentum. It accelerates steeply, the cheat population crashes to near extinction, then levels out as they enjoy the privileges of rarity and the comparative freedom from grudges which this brings. However, slowly and inexorably the cheats are driven out of existence, and the grudgers are left in sole possession. Paradoxically, the presence of the suckers actually endangered the grudgers early on in the story because they were responsible for the temporary prosperity of the cheats. 

When some group can't emigrate for arbitrage, they choose to ask the authorities for so-called “Human Rights”. For example, some stupid Chinese complain that one child policy is a violation of human rights, so they demand to call for the policy of one child because Westerners can give birth at will; someone complains the costs of raising children are too high, so the government should raise children's welfare because West government offers a 2,500-euro bonus for every baby born. They must be dreaming! The beneficiary is you, but the cost is borne by others. One Child Policy was absolutely right at that time. In chemistry, when molecules are in different phases, you may choose the opposite means to achieve your goals. For example, is increasing temperature beneficial to solubility? When I want to improve the solubility, solids do the inverse of gas. Temperature is good for solid solubility, in general, if you are dealing with a solid in a liquid solvent, increasing the temperature will increase the solubility. But what about a gas? When you are dissolving a gas inside of a liquid solvent, it actually has the opposite effect. When temperature goes up, solubility goes down. And likewise, if temperature goes down, solubility goes up. So, the position you are in is very important in decision making. Reproduction, now in China, is still a game of negative externality because some of them are irrational human and some of them are rational animals. Even though some Chinese already have pension insurance, but mostly of them have huge inertia, so the best strategy for the government should be to make good use of their inertia. There are also some people in the West who like reproduction. According to British news: Britain’s Most Shameless Mum, named Cheryl Prudham, who has already had 12 children, can receive £40,000 in benefits a year from government. Most have accused her of having children just to capitalize on government benefits, but in my eyes why Britain subsidized childbirth? It is because without a subsidy, no one would give birth, but it must end with Reproductive Professionalization. Those people, who has lower opportunity costs, would choose to reproduce for living. Reproduction, finally in China as same as in West, would become a game of positive externality. Like I said before, the emergence of pensions inevitably led to the result that reproduction loses its incentive, and then led to government subsidy, and then reproduction becomes a profession to live on, and finally reproduction enters professionalism, and people choose to reproduce for money. There is a saying that the way of thinking of Oriental and Westerners is different. This is absolutely wrong. Only the environment was different, which led to different counter-strategy, and then accumulated in opposite directions. This is why I do not want to associate with the Chinese people because they must bring me to the lower level where is an equilibrium in China. In order to maximize my interests, I have to choose the same vulgar strategy as same as theirs, but in the western environment, the model of mutual benefit can make me get more benefits. I like to enter into mutually beneficial trading mode with others, because trade can make both better off. I am an honest person, more precisely an honest business person.

People are born good or evil?

About human nature, there have been two claims since ancient times. Hobbes believed human nature is evil, man has no idea of goodness, he must be naturally wicked and vicious because he does not know virtue; that he always refuses to do his fellow-creatures services, while Locke and Rousseau believed human nature is good. My point of view is very simple: Using Darwin's words to answer you that any creature that has evolved must be selfish, or it will have died out long ago. Do you remember the lesson 5 in The Game Theory from Yale's open course: “Yale students are evil.” To be honest, human beings have two characteristics: One is selfishness and the other is greed. Dawkins has already explained battle of the generations and battle of the sexes in details in his book of The Selfish Gene. 

One of the most striking properties of survival-machine behaviour is its apparent purposiveness. What is a single selfish gene trying to do? It is trying to get more numerous in the gene pool. Basically it does this by helping to program the bodies in which it finds itself to survive and to reproduce. We have to learn to think in selfish gene terms. What is a single selfish refugee trying to do? The answer is they want to gain all the benefits without paying the costs. Under dictatorship, the public didn’t have the freedom to go abroad, but after the collapse of dictatorship, they have the freedom to go abroad for arbitrage. Altruism must be bad and selfishness good. This follows inexorably from our definitions of altruism and selfishness. As survival machines, the refugees are not wrong when they find an opportunity to arbitrage, as same as men are not wrong if women are willing to provide free sex-services. The key of all arbitrages is on suckers. These so-called refugees, like successful Chicago gangsters, are good at using the Western rules to arbitrage, and a predominant quality to be expected in a successful survival machines is ruthless selfishness. Sometimes selfish survival machines can achieve its own selfish goals best by fostering a limited form of altruism at the level of individual animals. Beneath the seemingly selfless surface is selfish purpose. Selfish purpose is hidden under all the seemingly selfless behaviors. Do you still remember that in the movie of Titanic how Cal used a little girl to get on the last lifeboat? Do not doubt the selfishness of refugees, because anything that has evolved by natural selection should be selfish. You could say that dinosaurs are altruistic, because they are extinct, but you can't believe refugees are altruistic, because they are good at using children to achieve the purpose of arbitrage. next, let's have a look at what Montesquieu said in his book of The Spirit of Law :

There is not perhaps any man in a comfortable position who has not greedy heirs, and perhaps even children, secretly wishing for his death; not a ship at sea, of which the loss would not be good news to some merchant or other; not a house, which some debtor of bad faith would not be glad to see reduced to ashes with all the papers it contains; not a nation which does not rejoice at the disasters that befall its neighbours. Thus it is that we find our advantage in the misfortunes of our fellow−creatures, and that the loss of one man almost always constitutes the prosperity of another. But it is still more pernicious that public calamities are the objects of the hopes and expectations of innumerable individuals. Some desire sickness, some mortality, some war, and some famine. I have seen men wicked enough to weep for sorrow at the prospect of a plentiful season; and the great and fatal fire of London, which cost so many unhappy persons their lives or their fortunes, made the fortunes of perhaps ten thousand others. 

Whether death or disaster, as a sudden event, some people will benefit from it while some people will lose from it. Do you remember the Luddite Revolt? The technological progress is good for some of people, but others take it as a threat to their standard of living. Any reform has broken the original pattern of interests by creating new losers and new winners. Like the good news for farming is bad news for farmers, the good news for men but at the cost of women's benefits. There is no doubt that vested interests group always see the awakening of fools as a threat to their vested interest. I hate to hear such propaganda that some places are paradise. My answer is that there is no such place called paradise on the earth, because on any cross section of evolutionary road, the interests of all people are in zero-sum games due to infinite human desire but fixed production capacity, and what I lost is what others got in total. Everyone have to be trapped in the predicament of the times, without exception including genius. Because of interest people must depend on each other, and at same time people must deceive each other for the same sake. To this end, the powerful employ all their strength, and the weak all their cunning. This is how the fickleness of the real world. Greed is the second characteristic of mankind. Montesquieu has a profound knowledge of human greed in his book of The Spirit of Law :

Besides, the possession of so many wives does not always prevent their entertaining desires for those of others. It is with lust as with avarice, whose thirst increases by the acquisition of treasure…. It is natural for a people to leave a bad soil to seek a better, and not to leave a good soil to go in search of worse. Most invasions have, therefore, been made in countries which nature seems to have formed for happiness; and as nothing is more nearly allied than desolation and invasion, the best provinces are most frequently depopulated, while the frightful countries of the north continue always inhabited, from their being almost uninhabitable…. We find by what historians tell us of the passage of the people of Scandinavia along the banks of the Danube that this was not a conquest, but only a migration into desert countries…. The most happy of mortals should I think myself could I contribute to make mankind recover from their prejudices. By prejudices I here mean, not that which renders men ignorant of some particular things, but whatever renders them ignorant of themselves…. When things are examined with never so small a degree of extent, the sallies of imagination must vanish; these generally arise from the mind’s collecting all its powers to view only one side of the subject, while it leaves the other unobserved. 

The key issue is not refugees because using market to arbitrage is never wrong. Everyone wants to leave a bad place to seek a better one, and not to leave a good place to go in search of worse. Refugees are not fools, why they don't go to Russia or East Asia? The only reason is high welfare in Europe. I want high welfare too. So now Europe is ravaged only because of the high welfare. The choice of refugees is consistent with the theory of evolution and the principles of market economy, and the irrational is the European governments. I dare say that refugees want not only just survival, but also mating rights, reproductive rights and voting rights and so on so forth. The fallacy of our choice is that man is far from the first principle of evolution: Self-Love. In evolution, there are only two options: Hunt or be hunted. Greed never ends until there is a power to hedge his desire, called law, by transferring the cost to himself, and then he would weigh the pros and cons by giving up some less important interests in order to gain some more important interests. Selfish is a very normal thing, and the key is whether you can transfer the cost back to him, and the laws of all nations are only consequences of hedging to keep equilibrium. People are not aware of Justice or Human Rights, and just accept it as the lesser evil. Comparisons are very harmful. Lies are necessary, because it is easier to satisfy occasionally a fool. Stuart Muller said that it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, but unfortunately, the pig does not think so. What is happiness? Are people happier now than one hundred years? It is hard to say. I think happiness is a relative value depending on the gap between your actual situation and expectations. You have to lower your expectation when you don't have enough ability to change your situation. Frankly speaking, if China didn't open the door, the Chinese people may feel happy as same as North Korean. The United States believed that overthrowing dictators can bring people happiness, but the fact is that people there don't feel happy because they believed they can be happier in Europe. God's strategy is to castrate people's desires before they have the ability to achieve the next Equilibrium. I stress it again that segregation is always a conservative stable strategy, please think about the IOS ecosystem of Apple phone.  

On inequality

The latest news shocked the scientific community that Nobel Prize-winning scientist James Watson has been stripped of his honorary titles at the laboratory he once led after doubling down on racist comments. Watson, who discovered DNA's double helix structure alongside Francis Crick and Rosalind Franklin in the 1950s, said that genes cause a difference on IQ tests between blacks and whites in a recent PBS documentary “American Masters: Decoding Watson.” This isn't Watson's first controversial comment about race. He lost his position as chancellor at the lab in 2007 after he told the Sunday Times he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really.” He added that although he wished everyone were equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.” Now let’s turn to the problem of inequality and examine the racial differences in IQ. We can't avoid Rousseau's book of A Dissertation On the Origin and Foundation of The Inequality of Mankind :

I conceive that there are two kinds of inequality among the human species; one, which I call natural or physical, because it is established by nature, and consists in a difference of age, health, bodily strength, and the qualities of the mind or of the soul: and another, which may be called moral or political inequality, because it depends on a kind of convention, and is established, or at least authorised by the consent of men. This latter consists of the different privileges, which some men enjoy to the prejudice of others; such as that of being more rich, more honoured, more powerful or even in a position to exact obedience…. It is in fact easy to see that many of the differences which distinguish men are merely the effect of habit and the different methods of life men adopt in society. Thus a robust or delicate constitution, and the strength or weakness attaching to it, are more frequently the effects of a hardy or effeminate method of education than of the original endowment of the body. It is the same with the powers of the mind; for education not only makes a difference between such as are cultured and such as are not, but even increases the differences…. For, according to the axiom of the wise Locke, there can be no injury, where there is no property…. In a word, there arose rivalry and competition on the one hand, and conflicting interests on the other, together with a secret desire on both of profiting at the expense of others. All these evils were the first effects of property, and the inseparable attendants of growing inequality…. There is hardly any inequality in the state of nature…. so many writers have hastily concluded that man is naturally cruel, and requires civil institutions to make him more mild; whereas nothing is more gentle than man in his primitive state…. The more we reflect on it, the more we shall find that this state was the least subject to revolutions, and altogether the very best man could experience; so that he can have departed from it only through some fatal accident, which, for the public good, should never have happened. The example of savages, most of whom have been found in this state, seems to prove that men were meant to remain in it, that it is the real youth of the world, and that all subsequent advances have been apparently so many steps towards the perfection of the individual, but in reality towards the decrepitude of the species. 

Savage man, when he has dined, is at peace with all nature, and the friend of all his fellow-creatures. If a dispute arises about a meal, he rarely comes to blows, without having first compared the difficulty of conquering his antagonist with the trouble of finding subsistence elsewhere: and, as pride does not come in, it all ends in a few blows; the victor eats, and the vanquished seeks provision somewhere else, and all is at peace. The case is quite different with man in the state of society, for whom first necessaries have to be provided, and then superfluities; delicacies follow next, then immense wealth, then subjects, and then slaves…. Let the learned tell us why, instead of multiplying to such a degree, these fierce and brutal men, without sense or science, without education, without restraint, did not destroy each other hourly in quarrelling over the productions of their fields and woods…. I hear it constantly repeated that, in such a state, the strong would oppress the weak; but what is here meant by oppression? Some, it is said, would violently domineer over others, who would groan under a servile submission to their caprices. This indeed is exactly what I observe to be the case among us; but I do not see how it can be inferred of men in a state of nature, who could not easily be brought to conceive what we mean by dominion and servitude. One man, it is true, might seize the fruits which another had gathered, the game he had killed, or the cave he had chosen for shelter; but how would he ever be able to exact obedience, and what ties of dependence could there be among men without possessions? If, for instance, I am driven from one tree, I can go to the next; if I am disturbed in one place, what hinders me from going to another? Again, should I happen to meet with a man so much stronger than myself, and at the same time so depraved, so indolent, and so barbarous, as to compel me to provide for his sustenance while he himself remains idle; he must take care not to have his eyes off me for a single moment; he must bind me fast before he goes to sleep, or I shall certainly either knock him on the head or make my escape. That is to say, he must in such a case voluntarily expose himself to much greater trouble than he seeks to avoid, or can give me. After all this, let him be off his guard ever so little; let him but turn his head aside at any sudden noise, and I shall be instantly twenty paces off, lost in the forest, and, my fetters burst asunder, he would never see me again.

The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society….  Destitute of valid reasons to justify and sufficient strength to defend himself, able to crush individuals with ease, but easily crushed himself by a troop of bandits, one against all, and incapable…. With this view, after having represented to his neighbours the horror of a situation which armed every man against the rest, and made their possessions as burdensome to them as their wants, and in which no safety could be expected either in riches or in poverty, he readily devised plausible arguments to make them close with his design. "Let us join," said he, "to guard the weak from oppression, to restrain the ambitious, and secure to every man the possession of what belongs to him: let us institute rules of justice and peace, to which all without exception may be obliged to conform; rules that may in some measure make amends for the caprices of fortune, by subjecting equally the powerful and the weak to the observance of reciprocal obligations. Let us, in a word, instead of turning our forces against ourselves, collect them in a supreme power which may govern us by wise laws, protect and defend all the members of the association, repulse their common enemies, and maintain eternal harmony among us." … But, if individuals became to some extent less able to encounter wild beasts separately, they found it, on the other hand, easier to assemble and resist in common… I regard it then as certain, that government did not begin with arbitrary power…. Now, in the relations between man and man, the worst that can happen is for one to find himself at the mercy of another…. 

Such was, or may well have been, the origin of society and law, which bound new fetters on the poor, and gave new powers to the rich; which irretrievably destroyed natural liberty, eternally fixed the law of property and inequality, converted clever usurpation into unalterable right, and, for the advantage of a few ambitious individuals, subjected all mankind to perpetual labour, slavery and wretchedness…. the despot is master only so long as he remains the strongest; as soon as he can be expelled, he has no right to complain of violence. As he was maintained by force alone, it is force alone that overthrows him. Thus everything takes place according to the natural order; and, whatever may be the result of such frequent and precipitate revolutions, no one man has reason to complain of the injustice of another, but only of his own ill-fortune or indiscretion…. 

Let me sum up Rousseau's point of view: (1) There are two kinds of inequality among the human species: One is physiological inequality, including age, gender and muscle, and the other is birth inequality, including wealth, status and privilege. Rousseau believed man can control his destiny, and many of the differences which distinguish men are merely the effect of habit and the different methods of life men adopt in society. (2) Private ownership is the culprit of inequality, and there is hardly any inequality in the state of nature. (3) In primitive state, man is gentle, so he is at peace with all nature, and the friend of all his fellow-creatures. (4) He regards it then as certain, that government did not begin with arbitrary power. I am sorry that I find it difficult to identify with his views. Let me clarify my point of views one by one. 

In my opinion, there is only one inequality called destiny, because God gave everyone different endowments by endowing different genes and different growth environments. In other words, we are born located in different knots in any game tree, which determines that we must adopt different strategies to maximize individual's payoffs and minimize the costs. In short, different endowment determines different strategy you have to use. Rousseau totally denied that talent gap between man and man, and believed that your destiny is completely in your hands. First, Genes must play a decisive role. A Chihuahua can never grow into a Siberian husky whatever in any case. Thomas Edison said that “Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration, but sometimes, one-percent inspiration is more important than ninety-nine percent perspiration.” When brainwashing people, politicians always emphasize the first half, but ignore the second half.  Second, I don't deny the habits and methods are very important in people's growth, but who pays the price. For example, they must share the different muscles if one person ate beef every day and the other was starved every day. Beef comes at a price, and who would pay for your price? Apparently, it should be the parents who pay the beef. What kind of family you were born in is also a kind of endowments, you can't decide where you were born. Don't expect me to beat Tyson by training me every second. There is an old saying in China: First humiliation then be brave. The women's biggest problem is that they are still in the stage of no humiliation, and in other words they don't believe P-V model chosen by God, means humiliation for themselves, so they could be brave to resist this model. West believed that all men are born equal, which is the greatest mistake of cognition and the source of subsequent erroneous cognition. The female greatest misperception is God represents fairness and justice, and P-V model is beneficial for men so must be beneficial for women because God chose it. It is not the scariest thing that you know you know nothing, and instead the scariest thing is that you don't know you know nothing, where all women are now. In fact, God has his plan of division of labor which may be may be random as same as division of labor of cells in survival machines, some of them become liver, some brain. You can't deny the importance of the original endowment. 

Rousseau blamed unfair on private ownership, but here I want to defense private ownership for a little bit. The fact is the opposite is true that prior to the emergence of private ownership, human beings were unfair. The inequality between men is the reason, and private ownership is the result. Inequality leads to private ownership. If we really want to trace the origin of inequality, it should go back to Bio-diversity, so first of all let’s go back to the evolution from Haploid organism to Diploid organism. When a creature is a haploid organism, it must adopt mitosis as an asexual form of reproduction. The progeny and mother shared the exactly the same genes, and it means the same species share the same genes. In the same environment, they either live together or die together because there is no injustice between them. Unfairness occurred when diploid organisms appeared, even no need to be sexual reproduction. You must know the famous Mendel's pea experiment, who is called the father of modern genetics. Why did he choose peas instead of other plants? It is because peas are self-fertilized. The result is very clear that, in the natural state, all offspring must be purebred. Mendel crossed a purebred short plant and a purebred tall plant (two purebreds) by removing the pollen from a flower on one plant and brushing it onto a flower on a second plant, which called cross-fertilization. There is no inequality between genetically identical homozygotes, but inequalities exist between different genetically homozygotes. We can still call this inequality among species instead of within species, but as the heterozygote appeared, inequality within species inevitably happened. I am certain that there are full of inequality in the state of nature, because as long as there is difference, there is a preference, and then there will be unfairness. In the natural state, you can’t see the inequality because the inferior individuals have been eliminated by death, while the inferior people are not eliminated completely so you can see them in your life. God is never fair from the beginning to the end. Marx's theory that the destruction of private ownership would liberate human beings must come from Rousseau. Marx believed that you eliminate private ownership and everything will be fine. No private ownership, things will be rosy, and there will be equality among people. How naive the idea is! As naive as women are, who believed they can get the freedom after the collapse of patriarchy, but the fact is they fell into free prostitutes from fee prostitutes. The stupidest thing women believed is that monogamy can make women equal to a man. Man and woman can never be equal, because that is chosen by God. I think the emergence of private property must be the first step in the beginning of the contract civilization. My view is that private property is sacrosanct. Even if their wealth is seized by violence, we should uphold the rule of law as long as he is playing a game based on the market economy, because seizing back with violence like the proletarian revolution must lead our human into vicious circle.

Every coin has two sides. The benefits of hybridization are self-evident: Diversity, but hybridization is also defective: no homozygote at all. It is well known that the practice of consanguineous marriage in Egypt is very old since Ancient Egyptians to keep the royal blood. Consanguineous marriage also has a long history in Europe. For example, the marriage of Louis XIV of France and Maria Theresa of Spain was a first-cousin marriage on both sides. Only Austria, Hungary, and Spain banned cousin marriage throughout the 19th century. First-cousin marriage in England in 1875 was estimated by George Darwin to be 3.5% for the middle classes and 4.5% for the nobility, though this had declined to under 1% during the 20th century. Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were a preeminent example. Now in Pakistan, cousin marriage is legal and common. Here I don’t want to waste time talking about the benefits of hybridization, because the benefit is very single: Prevent genetic diseases like Hemophilia. Here I want to discuss the results of hybridization and where the boundary of hybridization is. Frankly speaking, God adopted a strategy to suppress hybridization: Reproductive isolation. According to Wikipedia, the mechanisms of reproductive isolation are a collection of evolutionary mechanisms, behaviors and physiological processes critical for speciation. They prevent members of different species from producing offspring, or ensure that any offspring are sterile. These barriers maintain the integrity of a species by reducing gene flow between related species. I can understand why the ancient Egyptian royal family allowed only consanguineous marriage, because they want to keep their blood pure. In fact, the stability of any species is the result of self-fertilization. The only reason why we can see a wide variety of different species is reproductive isolation, and furthermore, the only reason why we humans have different races on the earth is reproductive isolation. The ultimate result of hybridization must be that there is only one race in the world, and there is no longer yellow, black or white races. We should thank God for setting the zone range of reproduction for us, otherwise I hardly imagine the hybrids would be between man and dog or cat. Many humans with low IQ must abuse this freedom. The only reason why Australia still have a wide variety of rare species now, is God adopted a strategy of isolation to Australia. We should change our thinking. People always think fertility is normal and infertility is abnormal. This is a way of thinking inertia, but I think the infertility is normal, because in the process of evolution, in order to prevent self-fertilization, female gametes must evolve a defensive strategy to suppress promiscuity. This inhibition must have occurred on female eggs, because eggs are scarce resources and the biggest victim of endless promiscuity is female. A haploid egg can also develop into a life in logic, but it didn't do that. Why? The key to unlocking a life must be controlled in the hand of male sperm. Just as the barrier to female-female reproduction, there is no reproductive isolation between two female gametes, but why a woman's gamete cannot fuse another woman's gamete and start a new life? The greatest charm of sperm is no longer providing half the genes, but in opening a new life. We humans do not get the key to how the male sperm opens the door of new life. 

Not only Rousseau had made such a mistake, that put the cart before the horse, in human history. Malthus criticized Godwin's system of equality in his paper of An Essay on the Principle of Population as well, because Godwin attributed all the vices of mankind to human institutions. Malthus wrote: 

The great error under which Mr Godwin labours throughout his whole work is the attributing almost all the vices and misery that are seen in civil society to human institutions. Political regulations and the established administration of property are with him the fruitful sources of all evil, the hotbeds of all the crimes that degrade mankind. Were this really a true state of the case, it would not seem a hopeless task to remove evil completely from the world, and reason seems to be the proper and adequate instrument for effecting so great a purpose. But the truth is, that though human institutions appear to be the obvious and obtrusive causes of much mischief to mankind, yet in reality they are light and superficial, they are mere feathers that float on the surface, in comparison with those deeper seated causes of impurity that corrupt the springs and render turbid the whole stream of human life…. No human institutions here existed, to the perverseness of which Mr Godwin ascribes the original sin of the worst men. No opposition had been produced by them between public and private good. No monopoly had been created of those advantages which reason directs to be left in common. No man had been goaded to the breach of order by unjust laws. Benevolence had established her reign in all hearts: and yet in so short a period as within fifty years, violence, oppression, falsehood, misery, every hateful vice, and every form of distress, which degrade and sadden the present state of society, seem to have been generated by the most imperious circumstances, by laws inherent in the nature of man, and absolutely independent of it human regulations…. The system of equality which Mr Godwin proposes is, without doubt, by far the most beautiful and engaging of any that has yet appeared. An amelioration of society to be produced merely by reason and conviction wears much more the promise of permanence than any change effected and maintained by force. The unlimited exercise of private judgement is a doctrine inexpressibly grand and captivating and has a vast superiority over those systems where every individual is in a manner the slave of the public. The substitution of benevolence as the master-spring and moving principle of society, instead of self-love, is a consummation devoutly to be wished. In short, it is impossible to contemplate the whole of this fair structure without emotions of delight and admiration, accompanied with ardent longing for the period of its accomplishment. But, alas! that moment can never arrive. The whole is little better than a dream, a beautiful phantom of the imagination. These ‘gorgeous palaces’ of happiness and immortality, these ‘solemn temples’ of truth and virtue will dissolve, ‘like the baseless fabric of a vision’, when we awaken to real life and contemplate the true and genuine situation of man on earth…. the vices and moral weakness of man can never be wholly overcome in this world…. 

Slavery is caused by natural physical inequality. If the winners and losers of violent civilization, and men and women exchange their bodies with each other. Nothing will change. Slavery will still happen. There is only two ways, hunt or be hunted. The result of putting the cart before the horse is to throw the whole community in confusion, and the collapse of Soviet Utopian communism and China’s capitalist reform have proved that, the vices and moral weakness of man can never be wholly eradicated, and such a state of an egalitarian society is absolutely impracticable, and perfectibility, in the sense in which Mr. Godwin uses the term, not applicable to man. Races differ, one from another, in important and meaningful respects because they are from different genes pools. They differ in physical strength, in courage, in imagination, in artistic skills and appreciation, in basic intelligence, in preferences, in attitudes toward others, in life-styles, in ability to deal socially with others, in Weltanschauung, in power to control others, and in command over nonhuman resources. Since you admit these differences between different races, why don't you admit the difference in IQ? This gap does exist. In the same race, individuals differ greatly in IQ, let alone different race. In a world of equals, most of the motivation for trade disappears. Exchange of rights takes place because persons are different, whether these differences are due to physical capacities, to some assignment of endowments, or to differences in tastes or preferences. We must recognize this cruel fact, not self-deception. All human contradictions originated from that people tried to endow equal rights to every unequal person. There are features of modern American society that suggest “sickness” to me, and West has completely entered mediocrity. They completely ignore this natural inequality and take it for granted that everyone is equal before the God, which is the bourgeois conspiracy. The essence of natural selection is the non-random differential reproduction of genes which premise is differentiation and inequality. Inequality has always run through the evolution of any life, and inequality between the sexes has started from the division of labor between the sexes, until now. The key point is how to make an equal treatment for unequals, not equals. 

The emergence of private ownership

Here let me answer Rousseau's question why, instead of multiplying to such a degree, these fierce and brutal men, without sense or science, without education, without restraint, did not destroy each other hourly in quarrelling over the productions of their fields and woods. His question can be expressed in this way how we evolve from the primitive society to the slave society? The answer is the advance of the tools. In other words, the advance of the tools changed the choice of the strong. Let me give you an example of my personal experience: There are two room in my apartment, and my mother sleeps in one room while I sleep in the other; sometime a fly flew into my room, you think what I am going to do? In general, I have two strategies: One is that I pick up the flyswatter to kill the fly immediately in order to prevent it from interfering with my sleep; the other strategy is that I take the quilt to my mother's room and sleep with my mother on one bed. What determines my choice? My mother? The fly? The weather? None of them. The key factor is whether I have a flyswatter. If I have a flyswatter, I choose to kill the fly; if I don't have a flyswatter in my house, I choose to avoid the fly, because I have to compare the benefit that will result with the cost of that input. Similarly, I don’t think the real reason why savages didn't enslave the same kind is not because they are born good, but because they have no incentive and ability to enslave others. The main reason is that, in barbarism, the degree of interdependence among primitive men is very low. In other words, you are no use to me or I can't get extra services or products from you, why should I keep you around me. The secondary reason is no tools to imprison the weak. Do you remember the upgraded version of Skinner box in endnotes of The Selfish Gene? The “exploiting” pig is the subordinate one, and conversely the “slave” pig usually the dominant one. Anybody knowing the pigs would have predicted that, on the contrary, the dominant pig would have been the master, doing most of the eating; the subordinate pig should have been the hard-working and scarcely-eating slave. If I were the dominant pig, the best case for me is sitting by the food trough, let the subordinate pig press the lever, but unfortunately the subordinate pig was not stupid or in Love or brainwashed by religion, and he would not serve me without any return. If I choose to hit the subordinate pig, he must choose fight, and the result is that I must win because I am much stronger than him, but I have to weigh the pros and cons. I am not stupid so I am going to choose less evil thing. What if there is knife in my hand? Will I change my strategy? Of course, yes. It is because a knife, like flyswatter, can make killing to be a thing with little cost. Let's go back to the evolution. The progress of tools is the main reason for human beings to enter the slave society. According to Wikipedia, the Bronze Age began in 3300 BC, and the start of the Iron Age proper is considered by many to fall between around 1200 BC and 600 BC, depending on the region, while slavery can be traced back to the earliest records, such as the Mesopotamian Code of Hammurabi (c. 1860 BC), which refers to it as an established institution, and it was common among ancient peoples. You can find a common phenomenon that, in almost all pictures of slaves in various countries, slaves are all in legcuffs, which is effective in preventing slaves from escaping. The development of tools has a direct impact on the development of human relations. In short, flyswatter make me kill, and the advent of metal tools make the strong kill, so I will choose to enslave him instead of killing him if he can provide some services and goods. In summary, the winners of Violent Civilization choose to start enslaving the losers for more goods and services instead of eliminating them when tools develop to a certain stage.

I can answer Rousseau's question who is the first man having enclose a piece of ground. He must be the strongest man. Might is right because in primitive slavery there is only violence, and there is no lie. The strong began to use tools to compel their so-called private slaves to serve themselves and protect their so-called private lands. Since then, private ownership had officially appeared on the stage of human history. In order to control more slaves and prevent slaves from escaping, the strong have an alliance motive. The first alliance must have occurred between the strongest and the second strongest, and the origin of the government was not for the maintenance of the law or justice or compensating for the gap of fate, but for enslaving the weak better, so I regard it then as certain, that government did begin with arbitrary power. In human history, violence must have occurred before the lie appeared, just as same as rape must precede G-spot. As time went by, authorities had found that lies were less costly than violence, so they started to enslave slaves with both violence and lies. Later, slaves were alienated in the role of slaves as same as women were alienated in the role of slaves. Now, in the relations between man and man, the worst that can happens is not for one to find himself subject to might, but to lies.

The nature of slavery is an absolute parasitic relationship, regardless of resorting to violence or lies. Let us forget so called “Humanitarian”, and just consider the problems from parasitism perspective. In biology, parasitism is a non-mutual relationship between species, where one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host. Generally, parasites typically do not kill their host because parasites need to exploit hosts for resources necessary for their survival. In other words, standing on the parasite's point of view for their own sake, they don't want the host to die, at least before they get a new host. Let's go back to the problem of North Korean issue. As we all know, the United States is the biggest enemy of North Korea. Can you guess who is the biggest food aid country to North Korea every year? Still America. Let me put it another way, the United States nourished a host of parasites who wants to kill you. Who should be responsible for today's situation? Of course, America yourself. This is normal that I would fight against you if you want to kill me. The problem lies in America instead of parasite. If Kim is the cheater, and then North Koreans are the suckers, and how to eliminate cheaters? There's only one way: eliminating the suckers from body or mind, because the presence of the suckers actually endangered the grudgers, and they were responsible for the temporary prosperity of the cheats. Obviously, providing food aid without any compensation is a strictly dominated strategy, and Game Theory told us: Do not play a strictly dominated strategy at any time. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party has forgotten this most important principle. America is too young too naïve, and I miss the age of the British Empire. Liberal international order led by America really cannot save the world. Let us look at Israel. Why did no country dare to provoke Israel? It is because Israel has effective counter-strategies to pass on the costs to themselves, but American don't. You should get some lessons from the disintegration of the Soviet Union. To be honest, I share the same values with the former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, modern US presidents Trump and Father of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew. After elected president in 2016, President Donald J. Trump's foreign policy is putting the interests and security of the American people first which is in line with the evolutionary subject, namely, self-love. For those of American climbing to the top of the food chain, there can be no mercy, there is but one rule: hunt or be hunted. David Hume said, “The rules of morality are not the conclusions of our reason.” Winston Churchill said, “The whole history of the world is summed up in the fact that, when nations are strong, they are not always just, and when they wish to be just, they are no longer strong.”

The emergence of the private system must be accompanied by slavery. Until now, women are still in the status of sex slaves, because P-V reproduction models decided that who is abuses and who is abused, which is their natural inequality. The emergence of private ownership is indeed a great progress for mankind. If we can regard the Slavery as the extreme point in human evolutionary function which opened the door to the accumulation of wealth, we also can regard the capitalist industrialization as the inflection point which changed the speed of accumulating wealth. Why should I say that? The protection of private property allowed people to weigh short-term interests and long-term interests, and inheritance system allowed people to weigh investment and consumption. A son has the right to inherit his father's property, status, and privileges. Through primitive accumulation, the birth of inequality officially ascended the stage of history. Everyone knows Tragedy of the Commons in economics which illustrates why common resources are used more than is desirable from the standpoint of society as a whole. This lesson has been known for thousands of years. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle pointed out the problem with common resources: “What is common to many is taken least care of, for all men have greater regard for what is their own than for what they possess in common with others.” That is key why socialism does not do the economy well. In Microeconomics, N.Gregory Mankiw give us a classic example: why the cow is not extinct? 

Throughout history, many species of animals have been threatened with extinction. When Europeans first arrived in North America, more than 60 million buffalo roamed the continent. Yet hunting the buffalo was so popular during the 19^th century that by 1900 the animal’s population had fallen to about 400 before the government stepped in to protect the species. In some African countries today, the elephant faces a similar challenge, as poachers kill the animals for the ivory in their tusks…. Yet not all animals with commercial value face this threat. The cow, for example, is a valuable source of food, but no one worries that the cow will soon be extinct. Indeed, the great demand for beef seems to ensure that the species will continue to thrive…. Why is the commercial value of ivory a threat to the elephant, while the commercial value of beef is a guardian of the cow? The reason is that elephants are a common resource, whereas cows are a private good. Elephants roam freely without any owners. Each poacher has a strong incentive to kill as many elephants as he can find. Because poachers are numerous, each poacher has only a slight incentive to preserve the elephant population. By contrast, cattle live on ranches that are privately owned. Each rancher makes great effort to maintain the cattle population on his ranch because he reaps the benefit of these efforts…. Governments have tried to solve the elephant’s problem in two ways. Some countries, such as Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, have made it illegal to kill elephants and sell their ivory. Yet these laws have been hard to enforce, and elephant populations have continued to dwindle. By contrast, other countries, such as Botswana, Malawi, Namibia, and Zimbabwe, have made elephants a private good by allowing people to kill elephants, but only those on their own property. Landowners now have an incentive to preserve the species on their own land, and as a result, elephant populations have started to rise. With private ownership and the profit motive now on its side, the African elephant might someday be as safe from extinction as the cow.

Slavery is full of violence, evil, exploitation, oppression and killing, but I still want to defend the slave society because we must admit that that is a part of our human beings' evolution, inevitable. There is no short-cut in evolution. Apparently, the emergence of private ownership opens the door to the accumulation of wealth. In my eyes, there are two stages very important in human history: One is slave society; the other is capitalist society. The former completed the transformation of private property from zero to one, and the latter not only opened the geometric increase of private wealth but also opened the door to knowledge and truth. Slave society is also a step forward for women to become private property of men, because men would only protect their private property from being occupied by others, so sex slaves are an insurmountable step in human evolution. The advance of tools, which inevitably led to the emergence of slavery and private ownership, seems to be the chief culprit of all inequality, but the fact is we should be grateful for the progress of the tools, because equality never existed from the very beginning of human history, and the advent of tools only increased this inequality, but only private ownership can accomplish the primitive accumulation of wealth, and then because of new technological advances human beings can enter the capitalist stage called Contract Society which based on two things: private ownership and contractual spirit. Napoleon code states that inviolability of private property are fundamental principles. In a system of capitalism, it is also a progress that inequality of birth is replaced by inequalities of wealth. There are only two modes of human existence: One is self-sufficient, and the other is trade, and the emergence of the slave society ended the first form and opened the second form. We human beings must always face the problem of how to solve scarce resources, which must be assigned by power if not by money. F. Hoelderlin said “what has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven.” Rousseau’s views were too radical, which laid a hidden danger for Marx's proletarian revolution, His ideas are often lacking in systems; he is far from a theorist, but an orator. No one I think can have marvelled more at the inequality of individuals during one species, than we have done. We take for granted equality's universality, when we appeal to men's sense of justice. The sayings and doings of daily life continually imply some intuitive belief of this kind. This is the biggest mistake where a series of subsequent mistakes were derived. God gives different people different missions. We must admit man can never be equal, but what we can do is everyone is equal before the law. The nature of proletarian revolution is to bring human beings back to the primitive society by force under the guise of pursuing absolute equality, and then let's experience slave society once again because there is no short-cut in evolution. The proletarian revolution would plunge us into a dead cycle, and you can seize my property by violence, but why can't I seize the same property from you by violence either? Reason leads to suboptimal results. The first step in our maturity is to acknowledge the inequality of fate, and second step is to compensate for the gap of fate partially by the continuous progress of technology. There is no short-cut in evolution. Any primitive accumulation of wealth must be accompanied inevitably by barbarism and injustice, which can not be replaced, and we have to face this cruel fact. Looking at China's past 100 years, when people refused to recognize the primitive endowments, violent revolutions happened again and again, even brought us back to violent civilization and caused a sharp decline of social wealth. At any point in time, anyone should acknowledge this primitive inequality regardless of what kind of means they get it, and then let bygones be bygones, finally set up private institutions and trading civilizations. 

The pros and cons of capitalism

If I were you, I would have a question why birth tourism is legal in America and Canada, their governments are all brain-disabled? Is the excessive dissemination of human rights a contingency? Obviously not. There is no contingency at all in the world, and all contingency is a necessity, which you can call “Lot” determined by the pros and cons of capitalism. Here I don't want to repeat some platitude about criticism of capitalism that capitalism is inherently exploitative or leads to an erosion of human rights and so on and so forth, instead, I want to rationally analyze the charm and wickedness of capitalism from the inevitability. For the pros and cons of capitalism, I can't ignore The Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in 1848. Frankly speaking, the first feeling after reading is that Marx is indeed an importunate Luddite. Using Marx's words to say the biggest pros of capitalism is “The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together.” Capitalism not only promotes the progress of material civilization, but also promotes the dissemination of technology and knowledge. The reason is simple that you have to teach me how to use it if you want to sell me something. This advantage is very important because the Capitalism has made the cake bigger and bigger, which obvious and has been recognized by all including Marx himself. In addition to this, I would like to touch on several other pros which Marx can't see. 

The second advantage is that the emergence of capitalism lets the genocide be replaced by colonialism. Before capitalism, in feudal times, every nation was self-sufficient. In other words, before capitalism, the only purpose of production is for satisfying the needs of producers instead of for exchanging with others, and the inevitable result of this self-sufficient economy must be that everyone got all the products from nature, so for nature as a scarce resource, everyone or every nation is in the game of zero-sum. Darwin also agrees with me, and he wrote in the Origin of species: As species of the same genus have usually, though by no means invariably, some similarity in habits and constitution, and always in structure, the struggle will generally be more severe between species of the same genus, when they come into competition with each other, than between species of distinct genera. Under this circumstance, genocide is the best strategy of a strong nation, but capitalism has, essentially, changed the history of genocide. It is because trade can make both side better off. Because of comparative advantage, in one hand, the strong nation needed the goods of the weak nation; in the other hand, the former also want to sell goods to the latter. From the view of game theory, I'll let you live when you live to be more profitable to me.  Adam Smith was right, “Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens. Even a beggar does not depend upon it entirely.” Dawkins also has a similar expression in the book of The Selfish Gene, “To a survival machine, another survival machine (which is not its own child or another close relative) is part of its environment, like a rock or a river or a lump of food. It is something that gets in the way, or something that can be exploited. It differs from a rock or a river in one important respect: it is inclined to hit back. This is because it too is a machine that holds its immortal genes in trust for the future, and it too will stop at nothing to preserve them. Natural selection favours genes that control their survival machines in such a way that they make the best use of their environment. This includes making the best use of other survival machines, both of the same and of different species.” Stopping killing is not from the benevolence of the strong nation, but from their regard to their own interest. In short, utilitarianism is the only reason for mankind to move towards peace. Capitalism's success is focused on money, so there is no racial or gender discrimination. To extend one step, capitalism will inevitably lead to the professionalization of the whole world and the evolution of human society towards the organic structure of human body by making new winners and losers. Marx also talked about this global integration like this: 

The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere. The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature. The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image. The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West. The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff. 

The third advantage is that the invention of the machine undermined the physical strength of men and lowered the career threshold. Karl Marx said, “Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him.” He was right, but it seems to me that is the pro of capitalism. Because the machine simplifies the process of production, in the past, it must be done by men, but now women and children can do it, so capitalists widely employ women and child workers because of their lower wages, and more and more men were thrown out of the factory. For example, men used to drive big buses in my childhood in China because the steering wheel was very heavy, but now lots of women are engaged in the job of driving big bus whether in the United States or in China. Is this women's physical progress? Certainly not. Progress is technology instead of the power of women. Just for the pursuit of profit of the capitalists, women can have the opportunity to go out to work, which leads to the human being entering the pseudo-equilibrium state, which is the prelude to the next equilibrium state. Whereas capitalists in the Marxian system rationally and calculatingly pursue their economic advantage and sow the seeds of their own destruction, in my eyes these same rational and calculating capitalists, in following their own self-interest, promote the social good. The above three points are all derived from the “self-love” of capitalism. 

After praising capitalism, let's look at the cons of capitalism which are the root cause of the chaos in the world today. Speaking of criticizing capitalism, let's take a look at what Marx said. I totally agree with Marx that capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt. This is the inevitable result that dogs of rich families are more valuable than people of poor families when everything is measured by money. In essence, trade civilization is cruel as same as violent civilization because they are both evolved, and everything that evolves is permeable with selfish blood, or it will be eliminated already. A common saying goes, "Business is as fierce as war". The common point of two civilizations is to eliminate unqualified people, but the difference between two civilizations is to eliminate unqualified people by different rules: The former relies on money, and the latter relies on violence. The purpose is the same, but the rules are different which cause the different outcomes of losers that, there is no any trouble in violent civilization because the losers are dead, but all troubles in trade civilization are from that losers are not completely eliminated in the body, and then these losers in trade civilization will resort to violent civilization by using unscrupulous divisive tactics, that is the source of the chaos in the world today. To clarify this, I must start with the Renaissance which is considered the beginning of modern European History. 

Capital and commercial trade thus existed for much of history, but it did not lead to industrialisation or dominate the production process of society. Capitalism in its modern form can be traced to the emergence of agrarian capitalism and mercantilism in the Renaissance. The Renaissance began in Florence, Italy, in the 14th century, and spread from Italy to France, the German states, Holland, and England in the 15th Century. Before the Renaissance, whole Europe was under the control of theocracy or the Roman Catholic Church, which had religious power, controlled people's beliefs and advocated Asceticism. It is not difficult to understand that, as I said before lies are shameless but necessary, resources are always scarce in comparison with population, so asceticism was used to control people's desires, otherwise, reason must inevitably lead to bad outcomes going back to violent civilization (ground state). Religion and Asceticism are the main obstacles for the development of capitalist markets, and capitalism can not grow in such an abstinent soil because it needs consumers as many as possible with various desires as huge as possible. What should the bourgeoisie do? The bourgeoisie needs to free people from asceticism and religion. The Renaissance was born under such a background, and the bourgeoisie need a change in people's thought. The core idea of the Renaissance is humanism, which challenged traditional religious beliefs, and focused on the ideas and actions of the individuals, and glorified the individual and approved worldly pleasures, viewing life as worthwhile for its own sake, not chiefly as a preparation for salvation, in contrast to the Middle Ages where humans were seen as small, wicked and inconsequential and should focus solely on earning salvation. In short, the core of Humanism is to replace theocracy with human rights, but unfortunately every coin has two side, and Humanism buries the seeds of trouble at the same time, so I believe that releasing desire is a double-edged sword. The Humanism has three big misunderstandings all from excessively releasing the endless desire of human beings in order to cater for the development of capitalism. 

The first one is the Humanism believes that everyone is equal on the earth and should enjoy the same rights. The French Declaration of the Rights of Man, issued in 1789 declared that men are born, and remain, free and equal in rights. I think this idea comes from John Locke who said men are born free and equal. I don't agree with him on this issue, and I believe that you have no heart if you don’t think men are born free and equal before your age of 30, but you have no head if you still think men are born free and equal after your age of 30. I was lucky enough to catch the last bus to be a wise person. The truth is all men are born unfree and unequal, because everyone is bound by the times and God even has a preference. I always say something that public may not want to hear. In fact, equality can be interpreted as the reason for social conflict, rather than the solution for social conflict. Freedom has the limitation: No harm principle. If there are no restraints, there is no civilization. Civilization comes out of the repression of drives, rather than satisfaction of drives, and the essence of civilization is a containment of freedom, rather than boundless freedom, because compared with limited material resources, human desires are endless. The confusion in Chinese society is not that freedom is too little, but that ability and freedom do not match. Spencer said, “When, in the pursuit of their respective ends, two individuals clash, the movements of the one remain free only in so far as they do not interfere with the like movements of the other.” The first principle of his theory is “Every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man.” The incompetent Chinese do not deserve freedom because they abuse freedom. We must learn to accept that we are unqualified consumers or suppliers in many ways in contract civilization, because God set some men above others as same as that God set all men above all women. 

The second one is, in order to release human desires, the Humanism views the dictator as the worst person and the masses as the good, all troubles would disappear as long as the dictators are overthrown. The truth is degeneration is more terrible than dictatorship because the masses don't have the ability to maintain the new equilibrium of democracy, therefore society immediately falls back into the ground state of violent civilization. Any equilibrium state is formed by the interaction of all suppliers and demanders in the system. No individual, including a dictator, can change this equilibrium. Dictators cannot die immediately because they are just one level in the local biological chain, and once they die, the ecological balance is broken, and then the nation will immediately fall into chaos until the next dictator establishes another dictatorial order. China's history of the last 100 years has already told us that these violent over turnings of early institutions fail to do what their originators hope, and that they finally result in the setting up of institutions not much better than those superseded, is very true. As long as fools exist, the next dictator will get worse only. A free nation may have a deliverer: a nation enslaved can have only another oppressor. The customs of an enslaved people are a part of their servitude, those of a free people are a part of their liberty. Liberty itself has appeared intolerable to those nations who have not been accustomed to enjoying it. Thus, pure air is sometimes disagreeable to such as have lived in a fenny country. For whoever is able to dethrone an absolute prince has a power sufficient to become absolute himself. Cheat could appeal to the emotion of the public. An egg is a life if opened from the inside, and a food if opened from outside. I recommend two movies to you here. One is American movie named Dogville (2013) starred by Nicole Kidman, and the other is Chinese movie named No Man's Land (2013). You will understand what the banality of evil is. I hate dictators, but I hate the ignorant people even more, because they are co-evolving. Equilibrium in a violent civilization is the result of the interaction of all people in that civilization, just as the equilibrium price of the market is determined by all suppliers and all demanders. The dictator, as an individual, cannot change the equilibrium price of the market either if he does not resort to violence. In the face of mob, I have nothing to do but a deep despair. I knew this feeling in 2012 in America. I am a bourgeois conservative, so I choose to wait. All which is as much as to say that mankind must have employed, in the establishment of society, a capacity which is acquired only with great difficulty, and by very few persons, even in a state of society. The West only considers that dictator might abuse his power, but does not realize that it is more harmful the masses abuse the freedom because so-called freedom has the limitation as well. The dictator system is not the worst system because state monopoly belongs to the category of trade civilization as well, the only difference is in competitive markets, price equals marginal cost, and in monopolized markets, price exceeds marginal cost. In fact, dictators are bad, and the masses are worse because both of them are for themselves only. There is no good or bad in dictator system, but only bad or worse. The next dictator will be worse, if the public does not change. I happened to coincide with Dawkins on this point, and he wrote this in The Self Gene :

In a large and complex system of rivalries, removing one rival from the scene does not necessarily do any good: other rivals may be more likely to benefit from his death than oneself. For instance, suppose that B and C are both my rivals, and I happen to meet B. It might seem sensible for me as a selfish individual to try to kill him. But wait. C is also my rival, and C is also B's rival. By killing B, I am potentially doing a good turn to C by removing one of his rivals. I might have done better to let B live, because he might then have competed or fought with C, thereby benefiting me indirectly. The moral of this simple hypothetical example is that there is no obvious merit in indiscriminately trying to kill rivals. You have a serious agricultural pest, you discover a good way to exterminate it and you gleefully do so, only to find that another pest benefits from the extermination even more than human agriculture does, and you end up worse off than you were before. 

The last one is people believes death is the most terrible thing, and life is better than death. This stems from the fear of death. This is unnatural. It is the result of capitalist propaganda. Based on reciprocal and mutually beneficial capitalist model, I wish you to live rather than die. All religions regard death as a kind of reincarnation or an inevitable lot. If all people are controlled by religion, how to develop the pharmaceutical industry? So, capitalism magnifies the desire of people to survive, or even greed desire of eternity. This is a typical consumerism trap which is the inevitable result of capitalism. To be honest, death is the lot of every survival machine, and fear of death is not natural, and everyone has to accept it, but we are being sort of indoctrinated by capitalism to fear death, aimed at increasing the desire for consumption. Look at the old lady dying in the hospital. Hospitals will not let them die easily before doctors squeeze all their money of their pockets. Overtreatment is very common in China. This is the miserable life of ordinary Chinese because they spent 70% of all savings in their last ten years in hospital. Human beings, as a kind of survival machines, can never be eternal, except for giving up reproduction theoretically, because reproduction and death match each other by achieve a dynamic equilibrium. Capitalism has completely aroused the greed of the Chinese, and on one side they do not want to die, and on other side they want offspring as many as possible. Capitalism does open Pandora's box of human endless desires. Here I would like to extend a point of view: suicide. Suicide is a private affair, but based on the same reason, the authorities began to prevent people from committing suicide. The truth is lots of girls' lives are worse than death. Slave owners do not want slaves to commit suicide, because slaves are also useful to slave owners. A lot of times, saving a man is equal to you killing a woman or a few women. In fact, as same as the broken window fallacy, you don't have the ability to solve the problem, you just do some stupid thing to pass on the costs to some others. Here I am emphasizing my point of suicide: Any individual has the right to commit suicide because that is my life instead of yours; I support the legalization of euthanasia because death is just the matter of time. Life is the beginning of all trouble, and death is the end of all trouble. Humanism has another feature: optimism. Every life is worth respect. Most people are rabble and unworthy of respect. In fact, the vast majority of life is meaningless. As same as Schopenhauer, I am a pessimist too. I have the same understanding with Einstein about this point in his book of My review :

When I was a precocious teenager, I realized that most of the hopes and efforts that most people have been pursuing for a lifetime are worthless. Moreover, I soon found that the cruelty of the chase, which is more elaborate in the days of the year, is more elaborate with hypocrisy and beautiful words. Everyone just because there is a stomach, it is doomed to participate in this chase. And, as a result of the pursuit, his stomach is likely to be met; however, a man with ideas, feelings can not be satisfied with this. 

Now let's go back to the disadvantages of capitalism which are natural and inherent in capitalism itself. Apparently for money, capitalism inevitably publicize carnalism and hedonism. In other words, after religion has lost control of human beings, human beings are exposed under a cold rational world of the marketplace. Here I agree with what Marx said: 

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation. The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers. The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation. The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind. 

Marx was right again. When the lies fade, people have to face the naked and cruel humanity, but the truth always hurts. The only purpose of capital was to pursue interests, so it began to release the greedy human nature, but capital forgot a very important thing that itself was also unable to satisfy all people's all desires. There are two reasons about it, on the one hand, compared with limited products and services, human desires are endless; on the other hand, consumption of goods and services has a threshold which is determined by the cost of producing it. The beautiful illusions of capitalism were based on complete transaction civilization, but it ignored what strategy those huge unqualified consumers would have, so Luddite Revolt or Proletarian Revolution appeared. There are no essential differences between the two. Humanism advocated the release of human nature and the pursuit of liberty, but there is not only good but also evil in human nature. Capital did not consider that the mass might abuse their freedom after the excessive liberation of human nature. Freedom is limited, and we only have a certain degree of freedom. "O liberty! O liberty! What crimes are committed in thy name!" Jeanne Marie Roland's Last words, before her death on the guillotine. Liberalism, as same as Patriotism, Nationalism, Feminism, Communism and Philanthropy, is exploited by some sinister intentions. Even African blacks in violent civilizations have learned to arbitrage with patriotism. Here's a classic case of black people making money from patriotism. Born in Nigeria, raised in New Zealand, Adesanya, as a professional boxer, was publicized as “black skin but with Chinese heart.” He also gave himself a Chinese name, Black Dragon, and every time he appeared, he carries the Chinese flag accompanied by a song of My Chinese Heart. He often sensationally expressed that he was addicted to Chinese culture, he wanted to be Chinese and fight for China. He took full advantage of Chinese patriotism to enrich himself. A spectre appeared in Europe, which direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labour, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they deny the money and try to bring the human beings back to an age of self-sufficiency. The legal system is based on contract. The essence of modern legal system is contract. This is the first disadvantage of capitalism because capital is built on trade civilization but forget one important thing that the losers of trade civilization would resort to violent civilization. In my view, capitalism is cheating which belongs to contract category, and socialism is robbing which belongs to violence category, so the more the poor, the more lies society needs. By the way, Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is both robbing and contract. After Mao's death, Deng, who was identified as one of these “capitalist roaders” during the Cultural Revolution, became China's actual controller, who advocated reform and opening up and instituting pragmatism within policy that are commonly considered capitalistic, including employing wage labor, increasing unemployment to motivate those who are still working, transforming state owned enterprises into joint stock companies and encouraging the growth of the joint venture and private capitalist sectors. Officially, according to the Chinese governments state ideology, China is currently in the primary stage of socialism, but in fact, China is capitalizing. Due to lack of orders, when the dream of communism Utopian collapsed, people began to fight for their own interests. The current chaos in Chinese Society is the same as that in Europe after the Renaissance. In China now, people are generally unhappy. Why is that? It is because happiness is only related to expectations, and the development of capitalism opened Pandora’s box of Chinese desires. Now, The Chinese are still with the incompetence of the proletariat but have the desire of the bourgeoisie. There is no right and wrong in China, but only the winners and the losers because the Chinese are not the rational maintainers of the contract civilization, but proletarian rogues and hooligans who are always ready to use violence to overthrow the authorities, so democratic election does not work now in China because they do not deserve it. The Chinese have already enjoyed the material civilization of the west, but they lack the spiritual civilization of the West. The basic characteristic of Western contract civilization is professionalization, but Chinese worship some professions blindly and despise some other profession blindly. For example, they worship police, teachers, doctors and white-collar workers, but despise blue collar workers, prostitutes and so on. When you are blinded by certain professional worship, there will be a lack of professional norms to require professional practitioners to behave, so as a result, it is bound to be chaotic. Of course, this is also from the propaganda of the authorities, namely, obscurantism which is very common in the dictatorship system. Only children distinguish right from wrong, but in the mature adult world, there are only pros and cons. By the way, in my opinion, the greatest Chinese in the last century was Deng because of his three policies: 1) Reform and opening; 2) Resumption of education; 3) One child policy. 

The second disadvantage of capitalism is catering to popular taste, which is also determined by the nature of capitalism. Catering is one of the attributes of capitalism, not only to the public, but also to ignorance and low tastes. For the profit, capitalism even can call white black and black white. Asceticism is primarily punitive. Every infraction of the Rule had a fixed penance. The purpose was to keep the mobs humble by keeping them aware of their imperfections. Humanism ignores right and wrong, and encourages people pursue pluralism by exaggerating their individuality unilaterally and making individualism extremely inflated, that keeps us from seeing things as they are. The education of humanism advocated our worship of human nature which took the place of God by. We human beings are the source of meaning and authority. It magnifies the instability and ignorance of human beings. In China, lots of mobs often despise some of the mistakes of the Savior's theory. Who gave them these courage and confidence? Humanism. The overspread of humanism is the main reason of serious chaos in the world, which caused the society to lose the standard of "right and wrong", and there is no authority, and individualism is overflowing, and standards of right and wrong of everything was based on individual subjective feeling. The West has completely fallen into mediocrity because they can no longer face the cruel truth. Recently, there is a news like this: French President Emmanuel Macron said that women in Africa are having a large number of children because they lack education, according to The Guardian. “I always say: ‘Present me the woman who decided, being perfectly educated, to have seven, eight or nine children.'” Macron said. “Please present me with the young girl who decided to leave school at 10 in order to be married at 12. This is just because a lot of girls were not properly educated, sometimes because these countries decided the rights of these girls were not exactly the same rights as the young man. That is not acceptable.” Many women were offended by his comments, and well-educated women were sending photographs of and tweets about their large families to tell him that they are not mutually exclusive. After reading these comments, I know why God chose to enslave women. They deserves it. Do you still remember the Number game in Game Theory, One of Yale Open Courses? Without showing your neighbor what you are doing, put it in the box below a whole number between 1 and a 100, we will calculate the average number chosen in the class, and the winner of this game is the person who gets closest to two-thirds times the average number. Ignorance and foolishness magnified by humanism seriously hindered the formation of common knowledge. Common knowledge is a statement about not just what I know, it is about what do I know the other person knows that I know that the other person… and so on and so forth. It turns out that society is difficult to converge to equilibrium, such as the dog’s problem in China and female orgasm’s problem in the world. The jury system is typical model of catering, which as an exotic product, is not suitable for China because most of Chinese are with low intelligence and low judgment but full of love. For benefits, people began to cater to the feelings of the mob, and to cater for stupidity, under the glorious name of “follow you heart”. The customer is God, and I must cater to your personal preferences, even the wrong and irrational preferences. Aesthetic judgment is very important, and people in different equilibrium even have the opposite judgment. The typical case of failure is the Hongkong film. Before 1997, Hongkong films are unique in whole China because at that time Hongkong films can't be sold to the mainland so Hongkong filmmakers don't have to cater to the mainland, but after 1997, the Hong Kong movie industry began to decline because filmmakers started to cater to the mainland. In pursuit of more interests, many Hongkong actors have left TVB to the mainland, but they forget one important thing they are nothing after leaving TVB. TVB is also degenerated. Under capitalism, there is no right, no mistake, no nobility, no aristocracy, only to catering. Where there is a demand, there is a supply, so far, the world was trapped in Consumerism. In the current China, capitalism sells youth and beauty (makeups) to women, and potency (Viagra) to men, and the future (knowledge and skills) to children, and immortality (tonics) to the old. To be honest, the masses so vulnerable to emotional influences and thus lack sufficient intelligence and judgment, that the subjective feelings of the vast majority are all wrong.

The third disadvantage of capitalism is to reduce threshold to entry. Like I said before, capitalism cannot solve the problem that there are lots of unqualified consumers in the market. In order to maximize its own interests, capitalism has evolved a strategy: lowering the threshold. Microeconomic theory tells us there is an equilibrium price in market, which depends on both aggregate supply and aggregate demand, so specifically, capitalism had two strategies to lower the threshold: Figure a way to reduce the equilibrium price and figure a way to shift the demand curve to the right. Next, I'm telling you how capitalism achieves its conspiracies. 

How to reduce the equilibrium price? Loan, mortgage and a series of derivatives later. The final result is known to all that the subprime crisis broke out in America. The essence of the loan is to lower the threshold of the equilibrium price because you can't afford the price from short-term, so you have to overdraft your future consumption from long-term. As the down payment had been reduced again and again, the threshold had been reduced again and again, more and more unqualified consumers can enter in the market, until zero down payment lead to no threshold. In China, some consumptions are with negative threshold, and in order to stimulate consumption, some businesses even give you money to spend, and of course high interest rates are waiting for you. The public has deep-rooted misunderstandings about the loan whose essence is to borrow money from your future self rather than banks. This is the eternal truth that zero threshold inevitably leads to confusion. I think subprime crisis is familiar to everyone because this is a compulsory part of the financial course, so I don't want to waste more time on it, but I want to talk about second conspiracy carefully. 

How to shift the demand curve to the right? “The reciprocal bond basic to marriage is not set up between men and women, but between men and men by means of women, who are only the principal occasion for it,” says Lévi-Strauss. This is the essence of marriage under patriarchy. Under patriarchy, any woman is strictly controlled by her father, and sold to another man through marriage, and women can't go to school or participate in social work, and their only value is to provide the vagina and uterus, as a goods, she has no rights of choosing a husband, or even no rights of choosing anything. How did capitalism do to shift the demand curve to the right? Disintegrating the patriarchy and letting irrational women enter the market. Every coin has two sides. Like I said before the positive effect of capitalism is that money has no race and sex discrimination because competitive markets have a natural remedy for employer discrimination and capitalists are usually more interested in making profit than in discriminating against a particular group, so women had the chance to enter the factory and sexual relationship entered the pseudo-equilibrium state which is the prelude to next equilibrium. At the same time, money is also the negative effect of capitalism. Money is just a different color of paper. What is the essence of it? The essence is the product and the service. From the transaction object to consider, there are two issues: Who will produce it and who will buy it? The sole purpose of capitalists is to pursue the maximization of net profit, which inevitably leads to two outcomes: capitalists hope 1) the lower the cost the better; 2) the higher the selling price the better. If you admit the above reasoning, you must get the following results. What are the capitalists willing to hire? Those workers who have lower opportunity costs, and in other words, women and children instead of men. To whom are the capitalists willing to sell their products and services? Those buyers who values them most highly, and in other words, irrational women and children rather than rational and practical men. A popular saying in China is that women and children's money are easy to make. Disintegrating patriarchy and emancipating women and children from rational fathers are the best strategy to shift the demand curve to the right. Obviously, under the guidance of capital, irrational, inexperienced and naive women began to enter the market economy, so capitalists have been led, in their own interest, to give partial emancipation to women. From the beginning with the disintegration of the patriarchal system, the world entered the bubble era: LOVE. The Renaissance also played a role in boosting the flames. At this time, many literary works were pushed to the stage of history to brainwash people, such as The Decameron, which include various tales of love from the erotic to the tragic, and the basic plots of the stories include mocking the lust and greed of the clergy. Public opinion began to encourage immature women to pursue love, aimed at enlarging their ignorance and irrationality and letting them provide free sex service. Public opinion is changeable, even opposite at different times. During the period of Mao, the propaganda was like this: For anything, you have to use the new thing for three years, and then use the old thing for next three years, and then use the same thing for another three years after mending it; during the period of Deng, the propaganda was like this: We have to spend tomorrow's money on today's business. Any propaganda must serve a purpose. The former called on people to be frugal because socialism inevitably lead to a shortage of social goods and repression of desire can relieve social contradictions; the latter called on people excessive consumption because Deng wanted to wake up people's desire for consumption to develop capitalism. All things have cause and effect, and all living beings have its own lot. Why diamonds are the world's biggest marketing scam in twentieth Century? Diamonds do not have any utility in fact, but why? It is because diamonds are bound with love. I dare say that the marketing conspiracy of diamonds is impossible to succeed under the patriarchal system, and the reason is very simple that diamonds are useless to rational and down-to-earth fathers. By the way, in my opinion the second biggest marketing scam is the World Cup because people endow it too much national honor, dignity or something belonged imaginary axis. The world has since entered a chaotic and irrational stage because irrational women are involved in public affairs. What caused the crisis? The crisis was caused by irrationality overflowing. This is a short-sighted behavior because any strategy of lowing standards can only result prosperity in short-term but must store up trouble in the future. This negative effect is constantly expanding, and children's unreasoning is because irrational women participate in the education of future generations. You would find a common interesting phenomenon that children prefer to cry in front of their mothers instead of their fathers. Why is that? The answer is very simple: Crying is very useful to achieve their purpose in front of mothers but useless in front of fathers. This is instinct that even children know how to cheat and use others. As long as there is irrationality in the market, someone must be going to use your irrationality for arbitrage. In order to achieve these two purposes, capitalism began to disintegrate male rights and advocate feminism, and the real purpose was to create cheaper works and irrational consumers. Feminism was just a political swindle just under the guise of so-called human rights and freedoms, and of course the patriarchy had his own counter-strategy, and finally, with the participation of the conservative forces, the forces of all sides of the society compromised into a final plan: Single-sex education. The nature of single-sex education is Gender segregation temporary, like the infant-industry argument in trade protectionism, aimed at for temporary trade restrictions to help women to be qualified market participants first, and after a period of protection women will mature and be able to participate in the transaction with men. In the history of women's education, Single-sex education must first appear at the start in both the West and the East, and then had been scrapped and replaced with coeducation little by little by various revolutions under the name of Egalitarianism and Discriminism. Now in some conservative countries, like conservatism in capitalist countries and Muslim countries in the Middle East, single sex education is quite common so far. At the beginning of the20^th century, the Chinese national government promulgated laws to ban men and women studying together, living together and swimming together, and the reason the government gave is prevent women from getting pregnant, but unfortunately those laws were overturned by swindlers and fools. Letting irrational women get rid of the patriarchal system and enter the sex trade is like putting a sheep in a group of wolves. Look at the present China, girls in middle school are pregnant everywhere, and unmarried cohabitation in college are everywhere. Current female situation reminds me of some words in A Tale of Two Cities written by Charles Dickens, but I make a change for a little bit: For women now, it is the best of times because you have the right of free choice as same as men in law; it is the worst of times because you abuse these rights; it is the age of wisdom because I am in your ages; it is the ages of foolishness because you are also in my ages; it is the epoch of belief because I have my faith; it is the epoch of incredulity because I doubt your judgment; it is the season of Light because I start to wake up; it is the season of Darkness because you are still in sleep; it is the spring of hope because I give the offspring the hope; it is the winter of despair because you let me down; you had everything at the same time you had nothing; you are told you are all going direct to Heaven, but unfortunately there is no place called Heaven. Vladimir Lenin, founder of the Soviet Union, once said that "the capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." In fact, Lenin was only half right. The capitalists will not sell you the rope if you are going to hang them, but they will sell you the rope if you are going to hang yourself. The irrational consumer who are more inclined to spend money in useless things is always the favorite of the business, so women's ignorance has been magnified again and again under capitalism. After the war disappeared, monogamy began to enter the stage of history, aimed at letting women become the comfort women and free prostitutes for the poor guys under the guise of Feminism, Egalitarianism, Discriminism and Love. The existence of fools is the only reason for the existence of swindlers. 

The forth disadvantage of capitalism is genetic fusion of various races. There are only three outcomes for multi-civilizations existence at same time: extinction or segregation or integration. Apparently, in the self-sufficient farming civilization, the outcome must be extinction; in the early days of trade civilization because of undeveloped traffic and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages, the outcome must be extinction; today in the global integration period, the outcome must be not only the integration of culture but also fusion of genes because women in poor nations are qualified suppliers and men in rich nations are qualified consumers in the whole world sex-services market. There is an interesting phenomenon that after the reform and opening up, lots of Chinese girls marry American boys, but few Chinese boys marry American girls, and by comparison, lots of Vietnamese girl wants to marry Chinese boys. Marriage inevitably brings reproduction because reproduction is bound to sexual intercourse. To be honest, we are all in transitional forms, so I dare say there is only one race in 500 years, and no white, no yellow and no black any more by slow and unconscious accumulation during successive generations. It is not hard to see that, as a nation of immigrants, many Americans are mixed blood, and for example, in NBA Stephen Curry, Blake Griffin, Tony Parker and so on are all mixed blood of black and white. At the 2018 Russian World Cup, in addition to the Iceland team, there are black players in other traditional European white countries, including Denmark. In French team, the vast majority are black or mixed blood, and for example, Mbappé is mixed blood of black and white. It's not hard to understand that many African countries used to be French colonies, especially North Africa. I dare say that world sports will be ruled by mixed blood in further because according to Biology, Hybrids will gain so much in vigour and fertility over the offspring from long continued self-fertilisation. By way of contrast, mixed bloods are rare in relatively conservative and backward East Asian civilizations, Middle Eastern Civilizations and Eastern European civilizations, but it must be temporary, and mixed blood is unstoppable unless you take the strategy of racial segregation. This is why I am afraid that Germany will soon become Germanstan, and even the most conservative royal family in Britain will have the first African hybrid. Rarity, as geology tells us, is the precursor to extinction. Racial discrimination can never be avoided until all human beings become hybrids. By the way, how to maintain racial diversity? Two ways: One is prohibiting interracial reproduction, the other is reproductive discrimination. The former must lead to racial integration and the latter a kind of genocide which is the next disadvantage I am going to talk about. 

The fifth disadvantage of capitalism is adverse elimination of genes because of reproduction professionalization whatever in mixed blood or not. In violence civilization, principles of selection by nature is the Survival of the Fittest, which controls the evolution of all life. What is the essence of principle of selection? It is the non-random differential reproduction of genes, which is why I don't think reproductive rights is one of “human rights” because it involves the category of genes. Natural selection, as an invisible hand, is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working for the own good of the being. so, in a state of nature, natural selection will be enabled to act on and modify organic beings at any age, by the accumulation of profitable variations and the elimination of injurious variation at the same time, or the species would become extinct. That is why we shall see how Natural Selection almost inevitably causes much extinction of some injurious genes accompanied by elimination of some individuals. In short, this is a positive elimination because the winners are eligible to reproduce, so we can view the interests of the winner individual interests, group interests and profitable genes interests are consistent, but there is a divergence of interests between the three in our human contract civilization. Like I said before the biggest disadvantage of pensions is that good genes are doomed to be eliminated, because the supplier must be the one with the lowest opportunity cost who must make no greater achievements in other industries. In short, the suppliers in reproductive market are “lemons.” Of course, this conclusion is based on that a successful survival machine has better genes than a failed survival machine. In China, the government is already going to cancel one child policy gradually due to a pension gap, and even the local government began to give birth subsidies, although Chinese population is still growing. I am sure it is going to happen that those genes in urban people are replaced by those in rural people. It is because urban people are facing higher raising costs. Not only have they to raise their children, but also spend lots of money on other interest classes, such as piano class, dance class, English language, swimming class, taekwondo Class and so on and so forth. One of my female colleagues, who has a ten-year-old son only, told me that she is more exhausted on Saturday and Sunday she sends his son to Various kinds of classes than she is on work from Monday to Friday. In addition, we must admit that urban people have a higher opportunity cost than rural people. In terms of incomes, urban people basically have pensions, so they don't need the financial support from their children. After considering their costs and benefits together, more and more urban people would exit the reproductive market because they are unqualified suppliers. The rural people are facing the opposite situation. In terms of costs, their children would not learn those things like piano; in terms of incomes, many rural people still have no pension, so they have strong incentives to invest for their old ages. An old saying in China: The saints fear the cause while the mortals fear the results. To be exact, the genes of the poor will gradually replace the genes of the rich, because only the poor will become qualified suppliers in the reproductive market. For the same logic, even if the Germans and the refugees are not mixed blood, the Germans with low fertility will be also replaced by refugees. When there is no immigration, we can regard Germanic nation as an Isolandian reproductive market isolated from the rest of the world, and the price adjusts to balance domestic supply and demand. After immigration, what would happen? I think it depends on the world price and domestic price. Apparently, for Germany, the domestic price is much bigger than the world price in productive market. To be exact, prices in developed countries are far higher than those in developing countries. It must inevitably lead that Germany, as developed country, become importing country in reproductive market, while these refugees become reproductive exporters. Now consider the gains and losses from immigration. Once again, not everyone benefits from it. As the equilibrium price drops in reproductive market, more and more marginal Germanic people, as the original supplier, are forced to exit the market. As same as externalities, racism is reciprocal. White people are suffering reverse racism. The former deputy mayor of Italy, Ceccano, Massimo Ruspandini, after the publication of the poster on his Facebook page at that time, “The first ciociaro born in 2019 was Chinese with small eyes.” I am not alarmist that some demographers have predicted the U.S. will become a majority-minority nation by 2050, with African-Americans, Asians, Hispanics and other minority groups outnumbering the people we call white. The shift in the nation's racial demographics have already been stark. In 1965, whites represented 85 percent of the population, with the other 15 percent made up of African-Americans. These days, white people make up just 60 percent of the nation, while Hispanics account for 18 percent and Asians about 6 percent. We must figure out what the essence of natural selection is. The essence of natural selection is the non-random differential reproduction of genes. Whites are quickly penalized and marginalized already by so-called modern civilization of capitalism. White extinction is the inevitable result of reproductive professionalization. From the view of genes, the white genes are being hunted now because good genes would be selected by successful individuals before pension, but now bad genes would be selected by failed individuals after pension. Evolution is the process by which some genes become more numerous and others less numerous in the gene pool. The emergence of pensions will inevitably lead to bad genes drives out good genes. We can name this atavism or adverse elimination, and the tendency of atavism may often prevent the work of selection. The situation in Japan and South Korea is also not optimistic, and fertility rate of them has hit a record low. All troubles stem from a major misconception: Reproductive right is considered as a kind of human rights. I'm sorry to tell you that the conception of reproductive right does not belong to the category of human individuals, but the category of genes. With a little familiarity such superficial objections will be forgotten, but human beings are still in oligophrenia period. 

In fact, some prescient governments had enacted laws to intervene in this adverse elimination but had been defeated by human rights. In America, the eugenics movement was rooted in the biological determinist ideas of Sir Francis Galton, which originated in the 1880s. Galton studied the upper classes of Britain, and arrived at the conclusion that their social positions were due to a superior genetic makeup. Early proponents of eugenics believed that, through selective breeding, the human species should direct its own evolution. They tended to believe in the genetic superiority of Nordic, Germanic and Anglo-Saxon peoples; supported strict immigration and anti-miscegenation laws; and supported the forcible sterilization of the poor, disabled and "immoral". Eugenics was widely accepted in the U.S. academic community. Eugenics supporters advocates for the removal of genetic "defectives" such as the insane, "feeble-minded" and criminals, and supporting the selective breeding of "high-grade" individuals. Beginning with Connecticut in 1896, many states enacted marriage laws with eugenic criteria, prohibiting anyone who was "epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded" from marrying. The first state to introduce a compulsory sterilization bill was Michigan, in 1897 but the proposed law failed to garner enough votes by legislators to be adopted. Eight years later Pennsylvania's state legislators passed a sterilization bill that was vetoed by the governor. Indiana became the first state to enact sterilization legislation in 1907, followed closely by Washington and California in 1909. Sterilization rates across the country were relatively low (California being the sole exception) until the 1927 Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell which legitimized the forced sterilization of patients at a Virginia home for the mentally retarded. While California had the highest number of sterilizations, North Carolina's eugenics program which operated from 1933 to 1977, was the most aggressive of the 32 states that had eugenics programs. An IQ of 70 or lower meant sterilization was appropriate in North Carolina. Some states sterilized "imbeciles" for much of the 20th century. Although compulsory sterilization is now considered an abuse of human rights, Buck v. Bell was never overturned, and Virginia did not repeal its sterilization law until 1974. The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States. A 1937 Fortune magazine poll found that 2/3 of respondents supported eugenic sterilization of "mental defectives", 63% supported sterilization of criminals, and only 15% opposed both. In the 1970s, several activists and women's rights groups discovered several physicians to be performing coerced sterilizations of specific ethnic groups of society. All were abuses of poor, nonwhite, or mentally retarded women, while no abuses against white or middle-class women were recorded. 

In Japan, a “Eugenic Protection Law (EPL)” permitted involuntary sterilization of people with intellectual or mental disability from 1948 to 1996. More than 16,500 women and men were sterilized against their will. The objective of this law was "to prevent birth of inferior descendants from the eugenic point of view, and to protect life and health of mother, as well." (Article 1) Under Article 3 anyone could be voluntarily sterilized if: (1) he/she or the partner had hereditary "psychopathia," "bodily disease" or "malformation," or the partner "has mental disease or feeble-mindedness"; (2) he/she or the partner's relative within the fourth degree of kinship had hereditary "mental disease," "feeble-mindedness," "psychopathia," "bodily disease," or "malformation"; (3) he/she or the partner was "suffering from leprosy, which is liable to carry infection to the descendants." In fact, EPL called sterilization a "eugenic operation," which was done either voluntarily or involuntarily. In 1996 the eugenic provisions were repealed, and EPL was revised producing the "Maternal Protection Law," which allows only voluntary sterilization and abortion. As I expected, the reason for the abolition comes from human rights and women, and ignorant and kindhearted women made a great contribution again in human degeneration. To be honest, this anti-degeneration has never stopped, but it has changed one way. In other words, there are substitutes. Congenital anomalies contribute a significant proportion of infant morbidity and mortality, as well as fetal mortality. The most prevalent conditions include congenital heart defects, orofacial clefts, Down syndrome, and neural tube defects. Since the introduction of ultrasound in the 1970s, ultrasound technology has greatly improved. Advances in medical technology now enable doctors to identify disabilities within the early weeks of pregnancy. Screening can detect problems such as neural tube defects, chromosome abnormalities, and gene mutations that would lead to genetic disorders and birth defects, such as spina bifida, cleft palate, Downs Syndrome, Tay–Sachs disease, sickle cell anemia, thalassemia, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, and fragile X syndrome. It is common practice for the doctor to recommend an immediate legal abortion, when a disable fetus found. The understanding is that if the abortion is performed as early as possible, it will be safer and less psychologically traumatic. The couple are usually advised that termination is the sensible decision and consoled with the prospect that they can try again. There is no essential difference between a compulsory sterilization law and abortion after medical detection, and both belong to the category of Eugenics, which can be viewed as a major victory for good genes against the bad. Unfortunately, there are still some people against ending a pregnancy due to fetal anomaly, under the name of “Human rights”. What crazy people! What crazy human rights! What crazy equalitarianism! In rural China, many pregnant women do not go to the hospital for medical detection at all. Because of lower opportunity cost, they prefer to give birth to a baby, and they decide to raise or kill based on whether baby is healthy or not. Of course, the best strategy for irresponsible parents is to put disabled baby in baby hatch and throw them to the government. 

In Singapore, Eugenics is part of family planning. As early as the late 1960s, just a few years after Singapore's independence in 1965, Lee Kuan Yew revealed his views on the relationship between genes and talent. A proponent of nature over nurture he stated that "intelligence is 80 percent nature and 20 percent nurture" and attributed the successes of his children to genetics. In one of his speeches, he argued that unless the better-educated citizens reproduced at a higher rate, the future of their progeny would be at stake because less economically productive people—the “social delinquents”—would live off the nation's scarce resources. In 1984, the Singaporean government also launched the Graduate Mothers' Scheme to boost fertility among married, educated women and a sterilization program to decrease fertility among the uneducated. The government prioritized college-educated mothers for housing and their child's school admissions and subsidized their deliveries in hospitals. The second component of the eugenic-based policy, the sterilization program, offered married women whose educational level was not beyond junior high school and whose monthly household income was less than 750 Singaporean dollars a grant of 10,000 Singaporean dollars to undergo sterilization of their own accord. There was a backlash against these pro-natalist programs which favored college graduates. Lee was indeed not an egalitarian in terms of his reproduction strategies. Despite the 1980s backlash, the inheritability of intelligence remained Lee's pet topic in the years that followed, and indeed to the end of his life. He described his belief that intelligence is genetically determined as a “hard truth” that has kept Singapore going. In his eyes, no amount of government intervention and social engineering can significantly change a person's lot in life as it has already been predetermined by the quality of the genes that they are born with. Government officials can equalize opportunity at the starting point for all, but they cannot ensure equal outcomes. But the result is not what Lee envisioned. However, birth rates across the board remained low as Singapore became a highly affluent and consumerist nation where having children, even if subsidized, could be a burdensome, expensive affair for most citizens. Lee was alarmed that as of 1983, 16 percent of graduate women remained single compared to 5 percent of men. Unmarried female college graduates themselves were frustrated with the government for publicly airing their singlehood and implicitly accusing them of prioritizing their own interests over national ones. They argued that the root of the problem was deeply structural, complaining that their juggling of both career and family duties was difficult in the implicitly patriarchal Singaporean society. They said that this was compounded by a lack of empathy for their difficulties from their male Singaporean counterparts. Why is it? The answer is that division of labor is not detailed enough. Let me put it another way, Lee didn't distinguish between bearing and caring. It can't be blamed on him, nor can it be separated in his time. His wisdom was that he knew to select highly educated women as qualified bearers, but he didn't realize that those women are not qualified carers because they had higher opportunity costs. How to deal with it? Let's have a look and get a lesson from other non-human beings. I have always believed that other non-human beings are rational because the price of their irrationality is death. Now let's review some words in The Selfish Gene by Dawkins: 

A social insect colony is a huge family, usually all descended from the same mother. The workers, who seldom or never reproduce themselves, are often divided into a number of distinct castes, including small workers, large workers, soldiers, and highly specialized castes like the honey-pots. Reproductive females are called queens. Reproductive males are sometimes called drones or kings. In the more advanced societies, the reproductives never work at anything except procreation, but at this one task they are extremely good. They rely on the workers for their food and protection, and the workers are also responsible for looking after the brood. In some ant and termite species the queen has swollen into a gigantic egg factory, scarcely recognizable as an insect at all, hundreds of times the size of a worker and quite incapable of moving. She is constantly tended by workers who groom her, feed her, and transport her ceaseless flow of eggs to the communal nurseries. If such a monstrous queen ever has to move from the royal cell she rides in state on the backs of squadrons of toiling workers…. In Chapter 7 I introduced the distinction between bearing and caring. I said that mixed strategies, combining bearing and caring, would normally evolve. In Chapter 5 we saw that mixed evolutionarily stable strategies could be of two general types. Either each individual in the population could behave in a mixed way: thus individuals usually achieve a judicious mixture of bearing and caring; or, the population may be divided into two different types of individual: this was how we first pictured the balance between hawks and doves. Now it is theoretically possible for an evolutionarily stable balance between bearing and caring to be achieved in the latter kind of way: the population could be divided into bearers and carers. But this can only be evolutionarily stable if the carers are close kin to the individuals for whom they care, at least as close as they would be to their own offspring if they had any. Although it is theoretically possible for evolution to proceed in this direction, it seems to be only in the social insects that it has actually happened…. Social insect individuals are divided into two main classes, bearers and carers. The bearers are the reproductive males and females. The carers are the workers—infertile males and females in the termites, infertile females in all other social insects.

All the troubles, caused by capitalism, should be solved by a capital way as well. What lessons can we draw from these so-called lower organism ants? Apparently, the ant colony, completely controlled by genes, has a strictly division of labor on reproductive strategy that some of them never work at anything except bearing and some of them are responsible for caring. Of course, this division of strategy, based on genetic perspective, would be evolutionarily stable only under the conditions that the carers are close kin to the individuals for whom they care. What about our human beings? It is not necessary in human beings because of Capitalist Professionalization, and it results in it that some unqualified people need to be carers as their profession. I am not sure, maybe until one day God allow the separation reproductive rights from mating rights, and I think that depends on the real awakening of women that they must refuse to breed for free for the poor guys. Pension, as the inevitable result of the division of labor by capitalism, is the largest Ponzi scheme by far. The essence of any Ponzi scheme is the game which always need more newcomers to enter. More precisely, Ponzi scheme of pension needs someone or something who can give tax, no matter what the man looks like, and even a dog is all right, just pay the tax. Just because of the essence of pension, the two conditions of American immigration are either talented person who can create wealth for the United States, or rich person who can bring wealth for the United States. In short, America also need money. According to the United States Census Bureau, the Asian American population, including those of multiracial and Hispanic and Latino ancestry, had increased to 20,908,701 by 2016, which has doubled over twenty years ago. I don't know when Humanism had instilled a naive idea to human beings that “reproduction is great, or mother is great, or a woman who does not have a child is incomplete.” All these propagandas are for reproduction, and the fact is nothing is great in evolution. To be honest, I think animals is great than human beings from the point of individual, because they don't expect any positive feedback from their offspring. The nature of pensions determines that human beings themselves become scarce resources. The threshold is reduced again and again, even negative. As I said before, zero threshold can only generate prosperity in short-term, which will inevitably lead to confusion in the long run. It tends to fill the world with those who are with stupid and defective genes. Let's wait and see. When the whole society takes on the cost of children, it is the responsibility of the government to choose good genes to reproduce according to certain rules. In my opinion, the only way to stop the adverse elimination of genes is separation the reproductive rights from parenting function or establish a certain reproductive threshold. For all physiologists admit that the specialization of organs is an advantage to each being; and hence we also need to adopt a more specialized approach to solve this problem. I guess, in future, human beings would adopt a mixed strategy which includes two main strategies: One is you have the right to spread your genes but you have to bear all the costs; the other is you only provide your gametes, and the rest of things is none of your business related to whether selected or not, and cooperate with who's gametes. In other words, from individual perspective, they are professional carers, and caring the next generation which do not belong to them is only for money. I guess, in future, paying gametes is like paying taxes, which is also the price we must pay for human civilization. Only by doing so can we maintain a positive elimination. We have already seen how it entails extinction; and how largely extinction has acted in the world's history, geology plainly declares. No one I think can have marvelled more at the extinction of species, than human have done. The race of human was already old, but man remained a child. There are only two ways in evolution: hunt or be hunted. We can regard this process as the application of the principle of selection by man’s selection. Frankly speaking, artificial selection has been used for many years under domestication. According to my old rules, let's take a look at what Darwin said first in Origin of Species :

Under domestication, it may truly be said that the whole organisation becomes in some degree plastic…. One of the most remarkable features in our domesticated races is that we see in them adaptation, not indeed to the animal's or plant's own good, but to man's use or fancy…. But when we compare the dray-horse and race-horse, the dromedary and camel, the various breeds of sheep fitted either for cultivated land or mountain pasture, with the wool of one breed good for one purpose, and that of another breed for another purpose; when we compare the many breeds of dogs, each good for man in different ways; when we compare the gamecock, so pertinacious in battle, with other breeds so little quarrelsome, with "everlasting layers" which never desire to sit, and with the bantam so small and elegant; when we compare the host of agricultural, culinary, orchard, and flower-garden races of plants, most useful to man at different seasons and for different purposes, or so beautiful in his eyes, we must, I think, look further than to mere variability…. The key is man's power of accumulative selection: nature gives successive variations; man adds them up in certain directions useful to him. In this sense he may be said to have made for himself useful breeds…. We see an astonishing improvement in many florists' flowers, when the flowers of the present day are compared with drawings made only twenty or thirty years ago. When a race of plants is once pretty well established, the seed-raisers do not pick out the best plants, but merely go over their seed-beds, and pull up the "rogues," as they call the plants that deviate from the proper standard. With animals this kind of selection is, in fact, likewise followed; for hardly any one is so careless as to breed from his worst animals…. I could give several references to works of high antiquity, in which the full importance of the principle is acknowledged. In rude and barbarous periods of English history choice animals were often imported, and laws were passed to prevent their exportation: the destruction of horses under a certain size was ordered, and this may be compared to the "roguing" of plants by nurserymen…. Some of these facts do not show actual selection, but they show that the breeding of domestic animals was carefully attended to in ancient times, and is now attended to by the lowest savages. It would, indeed, have been a strange fact, had attention not been paid to breeding, for the inheritance of good and bad qualities is so obvious…. We see the same process of extermination among our domesticated productions, through the selection of improved forms by man. Many curious instances could be given showing how quickly new breeds of cattle, sheep and other animals, and varieties of flowers, take the place of older and inferior kinds. In Yorkshire, it is historically known that the ancient black cattle were displaced by the long-horns, and that these "were swept away by the shorthorns" (I quote the words of an agricultural writer) "as if by some murderous pestilence." 

So far, we should admit the necessity of artificial selection. Can the principle of selection, which we have seen is so potent in the hands of man, apply to human ourselves? Whether in violence or contract civilizations, the basic principle of selection is to eliminate unqualified genes. Anyone who forgets this will be quickly penalized by selection. That selection generally acts with extreme slowness, so we still have time to correct mistakes we have make. That is not big deal, and the real big deal is how to distinguish good gametes from bad gametes. Darwin also admitted that, selection is the magician's wand, by means of which he may summon into life whatever form and mould he pleases, and not one man in a thousand has accuracy of eye and judgment sufficient to become an eminent breeder. I have been thinking about this question for a long time, and finally prepare to resort to God’s strategy as well: A mixed strategy set including female gametes with low risk and low return, and male gametes with high risk and high return. Let me put it another way, we must choose the low threshold as female qualified gametes and high threshold as male qualified gametes. Select a few healthy sperm by strict genetic testing and family medical history and so forth and so on, to fertilize the vast majority of female gametes. If my prediction crazy? I do think so. Contract civilization is just as cruel as violent civilization because both aiming at elimination of unqualified genes. If man wants to take the place of Creator, he must be cruel as a Creator. The government should think about how to deal with those rogues and hegemonists. The name of “Human rights” are useless in evolution. You must say that such a division of labor will lead to the loss of black genes, but trust me, before the loss of black genes, we are all mixed blood by the accumulation in one direction during successive generations. Maybe this is God's will because reproductive isolation principles didn't exist between different human races. Everything is under the best arrangement.