This book presents the following theory:

• The human condition is a state of intermittent or continuous suffering from sources such as mutual selfishness, inequality, poverty, starvation, war, disease, disability, natural disasters, bereavement, childbirth and aspects of most religions.

• The best way to reduce suffering is to love your neighbour as yourself; a degree of mutual selflessness is an optimal life strategy for individuals who exist in an environment in which others do the same.

• Loving your neighbour as yourself requires no spiritual beliefs. However, it is beneficial to be open minded about spirituality.

• Would the teachings of Jesus be proved to be valid if I did what he said? (such as not needing to worry about where my food and clothing would come from, spiritual healing and the provision of spiritual assistance).

• How and why is the Church different from what Jesus taught?

• I found that it was unwise to give up everything that I had without support from others, although it did mean that I had time to think about important issues and carry out research. I do not recommend that people should follow Jesus in this way without support.

• I found that the Universe is subtly spiritual in nature. However, I found that spiritual interactions appear to be directed towards maximising suffering, even though they may seem harmless or even beneficial.

• I found that the Gospel message is corrupted by Jewish and Pauline theology and spiritual interactions. Despite this, I found that the teachings of Jesus contain the key to reducing suffering.

• I found no purpose in the first commandment of Jesus, "love the Lord your God." I no longer use the Bible due to the level of corruption and misinformation that I discovered among fundamental teachings.

• I have found that religions do not discriminate between people fairly to justify either the promised benefits of heaven or the threats of hell. However, the second commandment of Jesus, "love your neighbour as yourself," is directed towards reducing suffering and can act as a definition of heaven. The concept of a personal heaven is an application of this teaching as discussed in the remainder of this chapter.

I admire that Jesus taught people to love their neighbour as themselves, and was prepared to die in order to teach this to the best of his ability within the constraints of a Jewish society. We no longer have these constraints, so it should be possible to make improvements to the teachings that are attributed to him. The following picture shows the difference between selfishness and selflessness and the potential benefits of loving your neighbour as yourself:

This diagram can be illustrated by an example from nature. Imagine that a bag of food has been placed outside for wild birds to eat, with enough space for only one bird to eat the food. When a flock of birds discovers the food, individuals fight to occupy the space to eat it. This is inefficient and causes stress to the individuals, giving a relatively low quality of life. Weaker individuals are less able to compete, and are more susceptible to death from predators and cold weather. The selfless alternative would be for the birds to wait in turn to eat the food, and to ensure that each individual eats enough (weaker birds in the flock would eat more). This would be efficient, create equality and minimise stress, giving a much higher quality of life. This higher quality of life could be described as a personal heaven, in which individuals behave with a degree of selflessness towards each other. A personal heaven would only work if individuals are genuinely loving their neighbours as themselves with the aim of reducing suffering, and fulfilling the needs of others. The statement 'love your neighbour as yourself' contains an intrinsic requirement for equality. For example, one would not ordinarily cause suffering to oneself to fulfill the needs of another person; this would be loving your neighbour more than yourself. To love my neighbour as myself, I should be prepared to do the things that I might want others to do for me:

• I should live in a way that gives me freedom while minimising the suffering that I cause to others.

• I should be available as a source of anything that would fulfill the needs of someone else, while not causing suffering to myself or others.

• I should be prepared to forgive others if they have harmed me and wish to be forgiven.

• I should acknowledge that some people are more sociable than others, and some people require more time alone than others. Loving my neighbour as myself could be as simple as leaving people alone to allow them the freedom to do what they want without interference, and supporting their ability to do this.

• I should acknowledge that my personal heaven would not be static, and that people could enter it and leave it. People often have a need for change in their lives, and the ability to let people go is an example of loving your neighbour as yourself.

• I should acknowledge that the way that I would want to be treated could be completely different to the way that others would want to be treated and I should be prepared to adjust to other people's needs.

• Loving our neighbour as ourselves goes against our natural instincts to be selfish. I would have to appreciate that it takes time to learn how to do it.

• A personal heaven would be a very good support network from which to help those in need. I believe that those who choose to do this would have a more stable personal heaven, because they would be in contact with more people who may be receptive to these ideas. Loving our neighbour as ourselves should involve helping those in need to the best of our abilities.

• I should be prepared to suffer for others if this is necessary to alleviate their suffering.

• I should be prepared to die in the place of others if necessary.

In the natural world, there are obvious differences between gender roles. They are equally distinct in human society, but are often hidden in social interactions. This means that there are differences between what men and women want, and if we are to love our neighbour as ourselves, it is necessary to take this into account. The following is a generalisation based on my own experiences and gender studies:

Male:

• Driven to be successful/dominant.

• Purpose: to pass on their genes to the next generation.

• Strategy 1 – to secure mating rights to a female (e.g. marriage) and defend this female from other potential sexual partners. Method: to do mostly what the female wants while restricting female freedom.

• Strategy 2 – to have sex with as many people as possible. Method: various.

Female:

• Driven by a need for security.

• Purpose: to pass on their genes to the next generation.

• Strategy 1 – to identify and secure the best protector (e.g. marriage). Method: complex social strategies to communicate their intent to a male, generally demanding that he works hard to win mating rights.

• Strategy 2 – to work for one's own security without involving men (feminism). This is not a reproductive strategy, but it fulfills the drive for security while giving women more freedom.

In modern times, this pattern can be more varied and relaxed, but the basic strategies to pass on our genes to the next generation are evolved though millions of years of evolution and are not likely to change. It means that what men and women want is quite different, and loving our neighbour as ourselves should take this into account so that everyone can have what they want. Although some of us are genetically driven to be married, this is far from ideal because of the restrictions to both male and female freedom.

One possible solution would be as follows:

• Place emphasis on providing everyone with security (both men and women).

• Suppression of the male protective instinct that would normally be restrictive to the freedom of both genders.

• Adopt a relationship structure that maximises sexual freedom. For example, the Mosuo are a Chinese ethnic minority group who live high in the Himalayas. Traditionally, a Mosuo woman who is interested in a particular man will invite him to come and spend the night with her in her room. The role of a father is played by male members of a woman's family (e.g. her brothers). This type of culture allows for greater sexual freedom than marriage.

It may be beneficial for people to serve in the ways that they are good at for most of the time. For example, some people are very good cooks, some people are very good teachers, and some people relate very well to children. By focusing on the things that we are particularly good at, we could make better personal heavens for other people. This would be more achievable for larger groups of people.

It would be loving our neighbour as ourselves to allow others to be selfish at our expense, because people want to be selfish. However, I suggest that it would be preferable not become slave-like or allow others to restrict our freedom; this would be loving our neighbour more than ourselves. There would need to be a very fine balance between individual selfishness and selflessness to ensure that all individuals within a personal heaven have the maximum amount of individual freedom. If any individuals started to feel oppressed or restricted then they should say so, because inequality within a personal heaven could lead to it collapsing.

Most religions entail theories about an afterlife, and the state of a person in such an afterlife is often linked to our behaviour in our present life. The promise of an afterlife can act as a restriction to freedom, because it attempts to link our everyday behaviour with our survival instinct. Therefore, to increase freedom it is preferable to believe that everyone goes to heaven or that no one does.

Many people believe that there is an afterlife if they have a spiritual experience. However, spiritual experiences do not prove the existence of an afterlife. It is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of an afterlife, but it is possible to ask the question as to whether or not this would be preferable. I propose that living forever in our present culture of mutual selfishness would not be preferable because it would mean that humanity would be in a state of perpetual suffering. However, I believe that if people were to adopt a degree of mutual selflessness as described in this chapter, then living forever would be preferable to ceasing to exist.

One way to love your neighbour as yourself is to teach others the benefits of doing so. Jesus taught that his disciples should be itinerant, stay in a house, eat what they are given and teach people about him. I believe that it would be beneficial to do something equivalent (there are many forms of advertising in our society) to show people the benefits of loving their neighbour as themselves, because it would help to reduce people's suffering if they choose to do it. In my opinion, the best form of advertising is to demonstrate the benefits by actually serving people.

An ideal society

An ideal society would be a larger version of a personal heaven, and would have the following characteristics:

• Equality (e.g. no government) and acceptance of all people.

• Sexual freedom.

• Forgiveness rather than a legal system.

• An emphasis on making the society into the best possible heaven for everyone to live in; it would have many forms of entertainment and ways to have fun.

The society should operate entirely on the principle of loving your neighbour as yourself. Everyone living there should serve the needs of others, preferably without having to be asked, and preferably in the absence of any fixed theology.