The Morality of Humans is Highly Questionable

Recently, Scientific American had an article titled: Why Robots Must Learn to Tell Us “No

Unfortunately, you have to pay to have access to the article, but the point of the article seems obvious to any moral person. Except, it isn’t.

So, I bought the digital subscription. I don’t need any more physical objects added to my already near hoarder level home.

Reading the article it takes an unfortunately narrow view of the bad things humans can order robots to do. The research carried out is on humans ordering a robot to destroy a physical object that it just built, but not ordering a robot to harm another human.

It is still a good article. I definitely recommend reading it. It includes discussion about Asimov’s laws of robotics and how they implemented something like it with ‘felicity conditions’.

The morality of humans is highly questionable. Anyone who has read some articles on this site know I have read and researched dozens if not hundreds of instances of humanity gone wrong. Humanity going wrong may be more the normal circumstance than the exception.

Asimov wrote a book about human that lived on a planet called Solaria. They took their human bodies and altered them. Then, in Isaac Asimov’s story, they defined human as only humans that have been altered as they were. Normal humans could easily be killed by these robots.

Consider that situation and perhaps the coders defining humanity by the color of a person’s skin or the color of their eyes and you can see the deep potential for robots doing harm to some or all of humanity.

Here is a thought experiment:

  1. In the present or near future a company creates drones equipped with squirt guns. It is great fun. The company does well and starts a research and development group.
  2. This group’s research and development comes up with drones that can fire based on facial recognition. These, too are great fun.
  3. Kids get teams of drones and water guns and play during the summer outside and this is recognized as one of the coolest things ever.
  4. The technology propagates out of the United States and western nations.
  5. A man that was turned down by a woman puts acid in the storage chamber and inputs her picture in to the device. It attacks her, burning her face off.

So, the robot – or drone in this case – was just following orders. Drone (or R/C aircraft) technology is widely available today and certainly a squirt gun equipped model could be built – even if the amount of water it can carry is limited.

The above sequence of events is certainly possible. So, what can we do to not have this happen in the future?

The drone must be able to say no. How can the drone say no?

Well, it requires planning and knowing the basic lack of morality of humans. A sensor would be required in the storage tank of the water gun drones. If the substance comes up as not water – the drone may not fire the water gun. In addition, if the acid attack is carried out by drone – prosecution is hard enough in crimes of this type – what about when there is little or no evidence and the perpetrator left the area long before the drone begins the attack?

The problem is that we have already put drones to work in the dirty business of war. We have already set the precedent that drones or “robot” technology can be used in the business of war – the business of killing people.

We will most likely have two sets of rules – military and civilian – for drones and robots.

But wait, there’s more.

Everyone is pursuing different ‘morals’ around the world. Murder isn’t murder if it is….

Honor killing. Except that no, honor killings are just murder. Murder of a family member because that member did something that you don’t like.

Large portions of the population in Islamic countries believe that honor killings are moral. Will they request (and get?) robots or drones with modified rules that allow for honor killings, acid attacks, and more?

If companies don’t create these alternate ‘Islamic’ moral rules robots, won’t the Islamic people create their own?

And More.

In any part of the world rape is a problem. Will there be rapists with robots to hold women down? Robots must be able to say no. Robots will need to understand the situation they are placed. Robots will need to understand what harm is. And programmers will have to have standards as to what constitutes harm.

What ‘moral’ actions will AI robots be applied to in the future? When women survive their husbands in India will the home robot ‘assist’ in removing her from the home – so the son can inherit from the father and the mother be put into a life of destitution begging for food and potentially prostitution?

Will drones and AI robots assist the sale of women for dowry?

But Maybe?

If we can code and ensure that while we humans in general are not moral – that our robots are moral there can be much good for humanity. If the costs of creating AI robots falls fast enough perhaps the drudgery that causes women to be sold for dowry in to slavery can be prevented – if the AI robots take care of these tasks. If there are sex robots perhaps rape can be prevented by having a place for rape to occur, just not to humans. Ethical problems may still arise, but, perhaps if an entity is designed to not be bothered by rape this ethical issues can disappear.

The potential that we have to work toward are moral AI robots – and for the ubiquitous to an extent that it prevents the above horrors. Intelligence may need to be built in to many devices. Autonomous cars will need to know if their sensors have been disabled by an unscrupulous human to commit murder by car. Moral AI robots will have limitations – but it needs to start with a basis of defining harm – and start with the worst forms of harm so that the good of placing moral AI robots in to existence will more than balance the harm that humans may attempt to make them perform.


It is troubling with how immoral humanity is that such power and based on the contents of my blog – we do such horrible things to each other. Perhaps, there is a chance that our children (AI robots, codops, etc) can help make humanity a more moral species.


I like the word juxtaposition: “The fact of two things being seen or placed close together with contrasting effect”.

It is also the title of a book that I read a long time ago by Piers Anthony. Sadly, I don’t remember much about the book at the moment.

Facebook is an interesting ‘place’ for juxtapositions. Three things are in juxtaposition for me at the moment.

  1. I created a spreadsheet of my articles and number of words and discovered that I have written 81157 words (before this article) – which according to baseline information is enough to be a novel.
  2. Scrolling through Facebook I hit on an article about 1 of the two focuses of this blog – AI – and it claims that there will be 3 billion of them in the next 5 years. At least the Facebook text on Futurism claimed that there would be 3 billion AI in the next 5 years. I think this is even a bit optimistic even for me – and I am fairly optimistic about AI and the future.
  3. Traumatised [English Spelling] family lay suicide dad to rest with wife and three children who he murdered” – the other focus is the inhumanity of humans.

I’ve written 115 (a couple not published) articles on a variety of topics. I’m going to shift my focus from writing about technology and the future, and writing about the depths of humanity – to writing my novel “The Morrigan”.

Based on information in item #2 – I may need to hurry up if I want to finish before some of the things in it become a reality.

Finally, #3 makes me sad. The grandmother on the mother’s side forgives her son-in-law for killing her daughter and her three grandchildren. So, he ends up buried with the family. There is a clash here of what people think. The article noted Women and Equalities Secretary Angela Rayner said “Hawe is no victim. We have to call out murder and domestic violence He was selfish and committed a despicable crime.”

I think Angela Rayner has the right of it. He was selfish in taking others during his suicide. Not for being a suicidal person. People that commit suicide are not selfish in taking their lives. It is often a feeling of complete loss, utter failure, and that there can never be a return to the way things should be that pushes the hand to kill one’s self. I know. I feel these things in my now 2 years of unemployment. I often feel that somehow I have become unemployable and I am fearing the future in which the money runs out and there is no way to pay the expenses. Nothing I do seems to have an effect on my employment situation.

This man; however, does not just commit suicide no matter his feelings about never getting to where he needs in life. He decided to rob his grandchildren and wife of their chance to attain happiness in life at the same time deciding that he no longer had a chance for happiness.

This is a strongly anti-woman action to take. He assumes he is the only one to lead the house. He assumes that they would never find their way without him. People find a way. Or they don’t. But if you kill yourself then you forfeit the right to knowledge of the future. Unless, of course, in a fit of spite, you kill the people you care about so that you know their future would never be any better than your future – as a corpse.


This ties back to the 3 billion AI in the next 5 years. If any of them are codops (Computerized Doppelgangers) – copies of human minds – what prevents them from doing horrible things to other codops, living humans, or anything else? We will need to be very careful about who attains the ability to have codops – even more careful than vetting police officers in HR as I discussed in the article previous to this.

One could well imagine thousands of copies of family members going about separate AI codop lives – and the father – perhaps even just one copy – one codop of the father decided that there is no hope for the future and turning terminator-like – and destroying all the codops of his family as well as the physical wife and children. Thousands of lives lost.

It is possible; however, that codop lives might never be lost forever. That through diligent back ups of systems – once you are a codop – you are a class, and individual codops are objects instantiated from that class. You might destroy the codop objects, but the codop class can always be found and re-instatiated with a loss of the more recent memories.

Lately, I haven’t been able to sleep – something that I had been always able to do with ease. I could just flip a switch in my brain and go do sleep. There has been some research recently confirming that there is such a thing in the brain that changes status and takes us from wakefulness to sleep.

I think more and more I am aware that money – and therefore time, is running out. But I have no idea what to do to make money – certainly not the money I was making before becoming unemployed. Two of my friends have indicated that people might be reluctant to hire me not just because of the employment gap; however, because on my resume I have a lot of knowledge and might be considered a threat.


To Escape From Hell

There are many stories of honor killings. I have gone over some of them here on this blog.

Sometimes, women are surprised by their family and killed.

Sometimes, women are attacked in their sleep.

Sometimes, women are burned alive.

There is nothing more upsetting; however, than the women who have escaped hell. They are no longer under the power of their parents, potential husbands, or brothers that will kill them for not conforming to what is expected of them – only to be ‘reconciled’ with their parents and then killed by their parents.

While I am referencing a specific case Samia Shahid – there have been a few cases where the parents of a woman entice the woman back – with words of reconciliation – only for the woman to end up killed – murdered by her own family.

This case is somewhat special in that I am using an American resource – an article on CNN – that gives the details on Samia’s death. This is probably only because Samia was  a British national at the time of her murder.

She had escaped hell. Divorced her husband. Remarried someone of her own choosing. Left the country that placed women as property and dictated what her future should be.

She was ‘summoned’ by her father to her family’s home. Probably the only way she would go was under the impression that they had forgiven her for going her own way.

She was raped. She was murdered.

Her ‘family’ reported that she had a heart attack. A medical examination proved that wrong.

Then a police officer hid evidence and allowed her sister and mother to escape Pakistan.

Chaudhry Muhammad Shakeel – Samia’s ex-husband and her first cousin was held in suspicion of her murder and later confessed to strangling her with her own scarf.

No word if he confessed to raping her. Or if he considered them to be still married and that a husband cannot rape his wife.

Her father is accused as an accessory to her murder.

I have expressed a few times on this site the lack of honor in killing a daughter, that this is an anti-survival trait for a person’s genes, that the last thing one should ever think to do is killing your own children.

No, this article has one thing to say.

If you escape from hell, do not go back. Ignore the pleas of family that they have ‘forgiven’ you. If they want to see you again, make them come to you in a free (or freer) country and make sure you are secure.

If people want to force you to be something and you break away, but the cord. Never look back. Even agreeing to see them again in neutral territory is a risk.

Series : Everyday Inhuman Humans – Day 7 7/10/2016

So, yeah, I’m late with this edition. That is a good thing, though. It let my thoughts work themselves out and should make today’s edition of Everyday Inhuman Humans better.

There are three major points that I will go in to detail about Philando Castile and a final wrap-up about what this means for the future and AI.

  1. There is an inherent conflict of interest in fines assigned by local government, enforced by local government (police), and then given to the local government to be used at its discretion.
  2. Specific people get pulled over move frequently than other people. Yes, black people, or people who aren’t white. How? Profiling of cars to racial stereotypes.
  3. The more times you get pulled over the higher chance that any particular time you get pulled over you will have an unfortunately encounter. [Six Sigma]


One: The local jurisdictions benefit from traffic tickets. They send out the traffic police not to ensure or improve safety, but to assign tickets for which the government gets money. This benefits the state in that if the state can count on these funds they can have artificially lower taxes – allowing their local citizens to benefit. This has the elements of a sin tax as people believe inherently that if you got a ticket you deserve a ticket and need to pay the fine.

Now, you might say, “Wait a second. It is about safety. Philando Castile got pulled over for a broken tail light.”  On the surface you might say this is a safety violation and that the police officer was pulling them over for a safety violation. However, if that was the case, then there would be no need for a fine, would there? If the state is concerned about your safety then a notification that your tail light is out and please fix it immediately would be all that is required. In addition, with today’s technology and license plate scanners and photographic analysis we could post machines that automatically generate these notifications and send them either by e-mail or physical mail to the owners to rectify the situation. There are two reasons for police stops for safety and it has nothing to do with safety.

  1. Revenue generation for the state (as stated previously)
  2. Excuse of illegal searches

To lead us to the second point we should start with a question. If you are a police officer of a local jurisdiction how do you select who is going to pay for the revenue generation? If you pursue this from a protect the innocent perspective – perhaps you target the less favorable people – from your point of view.

Two: Who gets pulled over and why? Now, the vast majority of the time the driver of a car is not visible easily before being pulled over. So, is it racial profiling? Yes. First, you determine who are the desirable people in your area? Clean cars, mechanically 100% operational, family oriented or no magnets or bumper stickers. Then you continue, the popular features of cars for younger people of race are lowered suspensions, tinted windows, luxury but older cars with aftermarket additions, aftermarket wheels, etc. Very shortly, you have a profile which targets largely male, younger non-white people.

So, how do I know this? I know of two people personally who used to get pulled over all the time. One was a redhead female mother of two with a Honda Civic, with nice wheels and tinted windows. Remove one element from that equation (the tinted windows) and the high rate of getting pulled over and getting fines went away. The other was a Jewish female mother of 2 riding a late model Cadillac Escalade with nice wheels, dark tinted windows and well maintained. She once told me how she would get pulled over and when the cops got to the window and looked in they were surprised that it was her.

I am a heavy speeder. I have been pulled over at least 6 times in the past 14 years. The cars I have owned have been ‘white’. Not modified. Not heavily tinted. No aftermarket wheels. I got pulled over because I was speeding or in one case I might not have slowed down enough for a yield in a traffic circle – you have no idea how much I hate traffic circles in the United States. Different rules in each traffic circle.

Philando Castile was pulled over 52 times in 14 years. While we cannot figure out the rate per 1000 stops that a significantly poor outcome occurs, it doesn’t matter.

What gets you pulled over? [drive a white car, with white stickers, and you are ok, drive a ‘black’ car, with black stickers, lowered suspension, tinted windows = getting pulled over a lot] – examples,  tinted windows nice rims and Honda Civic,  tinted windows nice rims Cadillac Escalade.

Three: I have had a lot of education in programming, project management, and process improvement. In my process improvement education I have gained a CSSGB (Certified Six Sigma Green Belt). Six Sigma can be used for many things, but I consider it a suite of tools for process improvement. It contains a lot of information on data gathering, problem determination, and problem resolution.

Unfortunately, (and very suspiciously) the police have not been mandated to track their stops and the times those stops have grown to violence, resulted in the death of a citizen (remember, they are ALWAYS citizens until such time as they have been convicted of a crime), or the number of times that police officers have been assaulted/killed in traffic stops.

So, the very basic information we need to do an analysis and figure out the chances any given stop will result in a fatality are unknown. We do know some things though. We know Philando Castile was pulled over 52 times in 14 years. We know I was pulled over 6 times (approximately) in the same period of times. Whatever the rate of undesirable outcome is, we know that Philando Castile was 8.6 times more likely to suffer it than I was.

Philando Castile was charged over $6500 for fines related to his traffic stops.  Perhaps, I was charged $1000 over the 14 years. While I was working those years I’m sure I was making more than he was which makes these fines an economic burden – much greater than if I had been charged a similar amount.

I like this quote from another article: “The majority of police work does not involve rescuing damsels in distress or foiling hostage situations. No, the modern day police officer is designed to extract revenue from the population through a series of immoral laws designed for that exact purpose.

Before you say, well that’s a bunch of shit, the goal of police stops is not to earn money for the government, take a look at this article.

Now, if you have physical money the Sheriff of Nottingham will take it from you if he thinks you are going to buy drugs with it (or anything else illegal). In an advancement of this process Oklahoma has now expanded this civil forfeiture to prepaid debit cards.

If you have been paying attention, the civil forfeiture has proceeded from “We’ll only take from drug dealers so they can’t enjoy the profits of being drug dealers if they get out on bail” to “Oh, hey, you are carrying a lot of cash, I’m going to take that from you because you might be going out to buy drugs” to “We are going to seize this home, because your son bought drugs and is out on bail.”

One consistency; however, was that it had to be physical money. Now, Oklahoma is setting the precedent of taking digitally stored money.

Next step, your ATM card. After all, the infrastructure for pulling money from a prepaid debit card is the same for your regular bank debit card.

Next Steps, the future, codops and racism

Clearly, constitutional protections no longer work.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”

First, well, Philando Castile is dead and this certainly means he is not “secure in their persons”. The desire for money for local governments and greed has expanded such that unreasonable searches and taking money are foregone conclusions.

So, if a codop (Computerized Doppelganger) is created of you, what guarantees do you have that such a codop will be secure in its person, its possessions, and where it is stored “home”?

Clearly, if physical humans cannot rely on the constitutional protections, codops will have little or no protection from government intrusions.

In earlier articles I have urged that we give the same protections to codops that we to human beings now in the present. I can see; however, that what is needed is a lot more than that. We need to fix the protections now in place before the codops become a reality. If we don’t it seems that those who have power will have god-like control of both codops and humans.


Series : Everyday Inhuman Humans – Day 6 7/9/2016

There are a few times where the severity of the actions of humans and the capability of humans to be complacent in the presence of that severity is completely surprising.

Horrific days long order ending in death of toddler.

It is somehow comforting when horrific events happen geographically distant from my home location. You see it and you think, “Well, that doesn’t happen around here.”

There is no comfort in geographic distance in this case – as this happened in New Jersey and in an area close to where I lived for a while.


  1. Single mother (26 years old) is dating a male (Michael Disporto Jr – 22 years old) for two weeks
  2. The mother picked up her daughter from her ex-husband’s house in Cape May county at 6PM Saturday.
  3. Mother and boyfriend went to bed about 11PM.
  4. At 7AM the mother wakes up and the daughter is sleeping in a different place, in different clothes, bruised and wrapped in a blanket
  5. Two hours later the mother unwrapped the daughter from the blankets and discovered some of the bruises
  6. Michael Disporto indicated that they were minor bruises from something that might have happened in the park the day before
  7. The mother at this point wanted to take her daughter to the hospital; however, was convinced by her boyfriend that this was not necessary.
  8. Later in the day the mother went to bathe her daughter and noticed extensive bruising including on the genitals. She again wanted to take her daughter to the hospital, but was rebuffed by Michael Disport Jr again – he indicated “What would people think?” in regard to the genital bruising
  9. Together they took the child to the mall as if everything was normal.
  10. The daughter began throwing up.
  11. They took he daughter home and bathed her again and returned to the mall – as if this was all normal.
  12. At 3:30PM the mother noticed the daughters eyes rolling up in to her head. Finally, at some point the daughter is taken to the hospital.
  13. The daughter had been severely concussed judging that the medical examination found fluid in her brain.
  14. Shortly after surgeries in attempts to save her life it was found that there was no brain activity, life support was turned off and the daughter died.

At any point it seems likely that the daughter’s life could have been saved by the mother. Ignorance perhaps played a role. The original article indicates that when the mother finally decided to take the baby to the hospital that he said he would not see her (the mother) again. This indicates that while the relationship was short between the mother and the aggressor that she felt she *needed* him. It seems likely that he knew this and drove earlier conversations either explicitly or implicitly with the threat that he didn’t need her and that she was the one that needed him.

Even so, neglect of one’s own child like this is far beyond the romantic or support need of a parent. The immediate need of medical attention overrides these lower level needs because, the child represents the future of the mother.

Now, let’s break this down in to social and cultural elements – at least as well as we given the low amount of information – so there certainly is room for error.

  1. The mother was already living with someone she had only been with for two weeks. It could indicate that she was no longer in a place to live on her own, felt the need to be with someone was that great, or loved him ‘that’ much.
  2. On a social level our society lends itself to putting women in this situation. Where they feel there is a ‘need’ to have a man. Also, vast number of the homeless are children. After a divorce often women (with lower incomes on average) have more difficulty maintaining a household (and even less maintaining a ‘lifestyle’).
  3. Usually, when there is even a minor injury I have seen many parents go nuts. This isn’t a great thing; however, in some cases where it is in fact a serious injury that means it will be caught, addressed and offer a higher survivability factor for the child. The downside is that in my children in specific even slight cuts that don’t penetrate the skin are ‘daddy I need a band-aid’.  It would seem that her needs for #2 overrode what would be considered normal (if overreacting) parental responses.
  4. In subsequent refusals to take her daughter to the hospital there might have been a couple of things going on. As discussed there might have been threats – not just the threats mentioned earlier of Michael Disporto Jr. leaving her – but also there could have been threats of physical abuse to her. These might have been implied threats as the mother already had enough physical proof that he was capable of beating another human.
  5. Also, in these subsequent failures to take her daughter to the hospital for care might have been ignorance. What you know or don’t know can kill you – or your kids. Once the child had started throwing up, and there was known that there were injuries to the head one of the major symptoms of a concussion is throwing up. Some people don’t throw up when they get a concussion; however, if they do throw up in close proximity to having a head trauma then there are no alternatives – get that person to the hospital immediately. Delaying, as in this case, most likely is what resulted in death.

There are other things about this case that are disturbing. A crime like this is committed you have to think that in retrospect perhaps Michael Disporto Jr wasn’t interested in the mother. That this had all been a setup from the beginning to gain access to the daughter.

You would think that perhaps this isn’t likely; however, I think that there have been plenty of cases where men (typically or maybe even exclusively) marry and have children with women – just to have access to a child to molest. This is far beyond the usual premeditation for a criminal act and for such a short time I would not be surprised if Michael Disporto Jr planned this whole thing.

Implications of these human behaviors for the future well might be a little difficult to understand. Patience is a virtue. Or so they say. Knowing how deeply humanity performs immoral of inhumane activities patience for an eventual payoff could be a very bad thing. In terms of codops (Computerized Doppelgangers) patience might mean  waiting hundreds of thousands of years for a immoral payoff. Say, there is a blood debt between people – someone killed someone else’s loved one. Then, both the related to the victim and the perpetrator gain immortality (of a sort) by becoming codops. What plans for revenge and how long would the related to the victim wait and have the patience to perform? What damages to others might happen as a byproduct of working to gain this revenge?

As humanity goes through many transitionary technologies and becomes more powerful on an individual basis, we need to become more moral. These strands of inhumane activities in humans will need to stop, or it will stop humanity in the pursuit of survival.

Series : Everyday Inhuman Humans – Day 4 7/7/2016

So, this is my second entry for today since I missed yesterday’s posting.

This is about a crime that is more inline with the typical crimes I report and wonder about.

Murder-suicide in Dale – it seems that age is no barrier to killing the person you supposedly love and then killing yourself.

Martha Lamar aged 68 when she killed William Lamar was aged 74. This is a bit more notable as it appears the woman killed the man.

The police have left this as a simple domestic disturbance. There is little information about children or grandchildren left behind or the echoes of this murder/suicide.

Still, it seems to me that basic rules apply. I don’t think you are ever too old to find someone to be with. It also seems to me that if being with someone makes them sad you wouldn’t want to continue.

Killing the person you love will never bring them closer to you. People don’t love you if they fear you (seems to have implications with religion).

I brought this one up because it just seems so weird that there they are – dead, and nobody has anything to say about it, except hey we didn’t hear from them in a little while.

Series : Everyday Inhuman Humans – Day 2 7/5/2016

Today I found an article detailing (and I mean detailing) the planned murder of Sadie Hartley.

Many of my previous articles are about humans who harm other humans – and might be described more as a passion, or emotional activity. For example, it is unlikely that the previous article the group of men planned to throw acid on Madhu Kumari. It is possible that the group of men planned to throw acid on any woman that refused their advances – which involves a small amount of planning.

In this case – clear first degree murder – Sarah Williams and Katrina Walsh plotted spent 17 months (!) planning to kill Sadie Hartley.

Sarah Williams (age 35) felt wronged by Sadie Hartley (age 60)  and that Sadie has stolen her boyfriend Ian Johnson. In an odd twist, Sadie is nearly twice as old as Sarah Williams and to me, as a male with a specific set of tastes suspect that Sarah was one really crazy person for Ian to choose to be with a woman much older than Sarah’s 35 years old.

Clearly, while Sarah felt harmed – if we were to create a scale of criminal harm and put numbers on it – there was zero harm done to Sarah. Sarah’s accomplice was completely uninvolved with Sarah or Ian – and also was not harmed in any legal or criminal way.

Losing someone you love is difficult. Death is horrible, disease is terrible, but there is something worse when the person you love chooses to leave you. It isn’t a circumstance that pushed you apart, job, a disease, they looked at you and decided you were not worth the effort.

Perceived harm in this case can be huge – larger than the loss when you lose your love to death. Sarah, as indicated in the article, blamed Sadie for the loss of her love. She at least loved Ian enough not to blame him directly for leaving.

I know how it feels to love someone that doesn’t return the feeling. If you truly love them then you would wish them well, think of them always, and if ever called do anything for them. I know this is how I feel about my unrequited love. That’s the way I feel about my love. That is always how I will feel about her.

Yes, it hurts. Being in pain is a part of the human condition. It is so much a part of the human condition that to not be in some kind of pain makes it hard to understand if you are alive or dead. We don’t always get what we want – no matter how much we want it.

Love is a more important issue than harm points. After all, many times love turns to harm of one or both parties to love. Not physical harm, but emotional pain and loss.

So, perhaps some more rules are in order. We can try them out – think them in our minds, figure out if the words are wrong or right or if the thoughts themselves are correct.

When someone you love doesn’t love you:

  1. The most valuable feeling in the world is to be freely chosen by the one you love. To be chosen by them over and over again. If they don’t choose you – you cannot force them.
  2. Harm units performed on the person you love that doesn’t love you will never get you #1. Or if they chose you after harming them – they are choosing you out of fear. Being with you because they fear you will never be the same as someone being with you because they love you. Someone that fears you will never love you – and won’t be the person you love while they are with you out of fear.
  3. Harming people that your unrequited love loves only harms your unrequited love. Harming your unrequited love is #2 on the list. Just don’t do it.
  4. Killing your unrequited love doesn’t make them love you. It just makes them dead. If all you wanted was for that person to be happy and you love them – making your unrequited love dead isn’t going to make them happy. It isn’t going to make them anything except no longer a separate consciousness from the universe.


The universe is a funny place. Not always a funny ha ha place, but funny, you know. If you try to force a person to love you, hurt them to make them love you, hurt someone they love for them to love you or kill them (obviously) you’ll never met up with them again in 10 years or 15 years and end up falling in love, or end up being their best friend or end up being that person that is there for them when they need someone.

Clearly Sarah was not taught any of this. Her love for Ian was a selfish love, only love when things were going right and now that they are wrong – it became a case of harming your love’s love in order to get that love back again – and as stated above that isn’t really going to work.

Yet, over and over again we find that parents, teachers, or mentors do not teach unselfish love to their children or students. The first time I was looking for today’s Inhuman Humans I found this article, but I threw it out because it was for yesterday.

Not one, but two cases in one article of murder-suicide. Men, killing the women that they supposedly love and then killing themselves. Completely off the list of things not to do for your love above.

I still don’t really understand male humans even though I am most certainly am a male human. If I would rather die than see harm come to the one I love, it doesn’t matter to me if she loves me in return. I would want the person I love to be happy – and death (not sadness) is the opposite of happiness because in death there is no hope for being happy again (unless you believe in fairy tales of afterlives) once you or the one you love is dead. When you are sad or even depressed there is always a chance (no matter how slim) that you can be happy in the future.

I’ll have to discuss and work on the concept of harm points in later articles, this article is already too long.