The zeitgeist movement

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

johnstamos:

Scarcity is an illusion created by a monetary system, resource based economy does not mean a barter system.

Solar,wind,and geothermal energy can power the world far beyond coal and fossil fuels, but because of the monetary system will not be fully utilized.

And to live in such a "idealistic communist" society as so many people are attached to the idea of, I and thousands of others would gladly learn how to repair the machinery used to build our society.

For a website devoted to video gaming, i really expected a lot more people with hope in science and technology.

Perhaps you could explain exactly how the Zeitgeist movement is going to eliminate shortages? That might start a reasonable discussion instead of:
"Hurr hurr my system is better because *Video*"
"No it isn't, stop being arrogant"

Imagine, for the sake of the argument, that we're all world leaders, and if you persuade us of a course of action, we'll implement it.
So... what are we going to do?

Nothing like the smell of your own brand, eh OP?

keiskay:
to answer the OP's last question.

the zeitgeist movement would stagnate the video game market. all companys would have equal money to produce, publish and develop a game resulting in a very real barrier of quality. this would in turn make the video games eventually just become the same the crap year after year with little to no new ideas. because simply living in a society where competition, jealousy, and want are removed so are the elements of risk, innovation, happiness and joy.

so you are saying that gaming wont change at all

BADUM TISH!!!!!

I think it's awfully pretentious of them to imply that they are in the spirit of the current Zeitgeist for a couple of reasons:

1. You can only really know what the Zeitgeists were in retrospect.
2. They can't claim to speak for 7+bn people. Dicks.

All I know of the Zeitgeist movement I know from the people that tried to get me into it, and that's not a pretty picture, because it's always the late teens/early 20's I'm-the-only-self-aware-person-in-the-world-and-I-hate-my-dad crowd. It's never an economist, or a professor, or anyone that would actually know anything about how the world economy works, just people my age and younger that saw a movie online and got the impression that they were given all the secrets the Illuminati doesn't want you to know (and yet made available online).

I love how so many people here think that "today" is as good as it gets; nothing better is possible than a small group of people exploiting the rest of us through imaginary concepts (such as religion, money, property, etc.) It really is amazing!

Let's look back 300 years ago at those who thought "oil lamps" were as good as it gets, before we learned how to harness electricity (wasn't that long ago, relatively speaking).

Those oil lamp loving idiots from yesterday? Well... that's us today! Think about it...

300 years from now, we'll be looked at as the primitive people we are; fighting over resources, destroying our planet for differential advantage, when clearly it is better for our human family to cooperate over resources (as in nature).

The outdated lies about needing to compete to promote prosperity will be considered just that.

Nothing says that if there isn't profit motive, then our species doesn't thrive. That is outdated programming coming from... you guessed it... the same profit system we're all enslaved to today.

How anyone can miss the writing on the wall that the increasing war, poverty, crime, violence, all as a result of fighting over resources, is going to lead to a "better future" than if we finally accept the reality that our resources can be made abundant if we choose to prioritize such values in our environment, just astounds me. Really it blows my mind how ignorant a view that is.

If you think any form of social cooperation is "communism" (seriously? still with this old propaganda programming here in 2012?), then you have outdated info.

If you think we humans are violent "by nature" (not by environment) then you have outdated info.

If you think we need money or differential advantage to prosper, you have outdated info (the truth is the opposite now).

If you think the world has advanced by any means other than "technology" (including fire, wheels, pencils, eye glasses, lasers and satellites) then.... yep, YOU HAVE OUTDATED INFO!!

Time to update the info boys! Adapting to this reality is as simple a choice as between you perishing and you surviving.

Casemon:
I love how so many people here think that "today" is as good as it gets; nothing better is possible than a small group of people exploiting the rest of us through imaginary concepts (such as religion, money, property, etc.) It really is amazing!

Let's look back 300 years ago at those who thought "oil lamps" were as good as it gets, before we learned how to harness electricity (wasn't that long ago, relatively speaking).

Those oil lamp loving idiots from yesterday? Well... that's us today! Think about it...

300 years from now, we'll be looked at as the primitive people we are; fighting over resources, destroying our planet for differential advantage, when clearly it is better for our human family to cooperate over resources (as in nature).

The outdated lies about needing to compete to promote prosperity will be considered just that.

Nothing says that if there isn't profit motive, then our species doesn't thrive. That is outdated programming coming from... you guessed it... the same profit system we're all enslaved to today.

How anyone can miss the writing on the wall that the increasing war, poverty, crime, violence, all as a result of fighting over resources, is going to lead to a "better future" than if we finally accept the reality that our resources can be made abundant if we choose to prioritize such values in our environment, just astounds me. Really it blows my mind how ignorant a view that is.

If you think any form of social cooperation is "communism" (seriously? still with this old propaganda programming here in 2012?), then you have outdated info.

If you think we humans are violent "by nature" (not by environment) then you have outdated info.

If you think we need money or differential advantage to prosper, you have outdated info (the truth is the opposite now).

If you think the world has advanced by any means other than "technology" (including fire, wheels, pencils, eye glasses, lasers and satellites) then.... yep, YOU HAVE OUTDATED INFO!!

Time to update the info boys! Adapting to this reality is as simple a choice as between perishing and surviving.

so now how about you prove everything you just said.

Casemon:
I love how so many people here think that "today" is as good as it gets

I stopped reading there, since nobody in this thread has said anything remotely like this.

The minute one of you Zeitgeist folks can tell me HOW we're going to get to this utopian society you've ginned up, call me. Until then, kindly go drink your juice.

@keiskay
Let's add another one:

If you think change comes about from sitting back on your ass and letting other people do the work for you, then you have outdated info.

How about this: I posit the above, and you respect yourself enough to do your own research BEFORE concluding an idea is false?

Casemon:
@keiskay
Let's add another one:

If you think change comes about from sitting back on your ass and letting other people do the work for you, then you have outdated info.

How about this: I posit the above, and you respect yourself enough to do your own research BEFORE concluding an idea is false?

You didn't "posit" anything. You gave a bunch of platitudes about competition and how we'll be looked at as primitive in 300 years and how everybody except for you has "outdated info," while providing positively zero factual information.

Seriously, get the fuck over yourself.

This whole notion that resources are just going to fall from the sky if we just try real hard is fucking stupid. Yes, we need to work on renewable energy, but this notion that we can just wish them into reality is utterly ridiculous.

@Tyler Perry
Surely you're bright enough to see the device of using the same tactic shown in this forum here, but in reverse?

To make it easy for you: it is a response to Heronblade's (false) claim that anyone is suggesting if you don't see the direction that increased war, poverty, crime will lead to our demise, then you "just LOVES war, poverty, hunger".

Ridiculous.

Casemon:
@Tyler Perry
Surely you're bright enough to see the device of using the same tactic shown in this forum here, but in reverse?

To make it easy for you: it is a response to Heronblade's (false) claim that anyone is suggesting if you don't see the direction that increased war, poverty, crime will lead to our demise, then you "just LOVES war, poverty, hunger".

Ridiculous.

What the fuck are you talking about? The OP basically came out and said that anyone who disagreed or found any fault in his premise was a war/poverty/hunger supporter.

johnstamos:

Simply amazing how attached people are to their failure of a system.
But I am not here to try and force anyone to believe anything.
I only hope that some day people will become as tired of war,poverty,hunger and human suffering as i am.
No one is born a thief or a racist or full of greed, they are side of effects of the primitive societal structure that everyone clings to so very hard

Casemon:
How about this: I posit the above, and you respect yourself enough to do your own research BEFORE concluding an idea is false?

Reversing the burden of evidence already without even trying to argue your point?

For instance one could point at how capitalism is all-pervasive pretty much since the dawn of time. The only exception from this is tribalism, where small groups of humans need eachother to survive on a day-to-day basis, have no commodities, no social stratification other than a leader, too few people to form a society and thus work together to gather food.

And even that's a bit of a misnomer because even most primitive tribes have (capitalistic) barter economies.

Voila, even your reversed burden of evidence has been satisfied. Care to bring in your first argument now?

@Tyler Perry
Sorry, i don't know how to communicate with people like you; people who have to throw insults and bile when their comfort zone is threatened.

If you want to grow up first, then I'm sure we can have a meaningful discussion. Until then, your immediate dismissal of anything that doesn't align with what you were taught, shows to me I'd be wasting my time.

Am not here to convince you of anything. If what is suggested does not resonate as interesting or (possibly) true to you, then you can wait and see as things deteriorate further and then ask your self why that is?

Most likely though, you'll choose to do what you've chosen to do here; ignore the call to change, don't keep up with what's happening in the world, keep your head in the sand, turn on the PS3 and pretend everything is just fine.

Good luck with that (you'll need it).

@Blahblahb
To be fair, there isn't a one-line answer or evidence that illustrates these points. They are the result of years of study and for me to begin to post links, is only scratching the surface. Evidence is out there, if you only look for it. That said, knowing how forums are, can help you start:

http://www.google.com/search?q=dan+pink+motivation
http://www.google.com/search?q=gabor+mate+capitalism

But if you're too lazy to even do a single google search on your own, then maybe it isn't the time for you to hear these truths?

To say, to understand these points of view, takes more effort than hitting the Reply button! Sorry!

@Tyler Perry

Tyler Perry:

What the fuck are you talking about? The OP basically came out and said that anyone who disagreed or found any fault in his premise was a war/poverty/hunger supporter.

johnstamos:

Simply amazing how attached people are to their failure of a system.
But I am not here to try and force anyone to believe anything.
I only hope that some day people will become as tired of war,poverty,hunger and human suffering as i am.
No one is born a thief or a racist or full of greed, they are side of effects of the primitive societal structure that everyone clings to so very hard

If that is what you interpret from Johnstamos' statement, then by all means, sit back and relax, and everything will be fine! Don't worry, you're good, your pets are good, your understanding of our species is very current, and you have nothing to worry about!

But for the rest of us, you know those who will survive the end of scarcity-driven-economics, they get an entirely different understanding from what he said.

Casemon:
@keiskay
Let's add another one:

If you think change comes about from sitting back on your ass and letting other people do the work for you, then you have outdated info.

How about this: I posit the above, and you respect yourself enough to do your own research BEFORE concluding an idea is false?

sorry but i have done research of my own long before hand. i think the venus project is a very nice idea, but it has no real evidence backing it up. it ignores scientific research in all relevant fields and was made up to tug on peoples emotions. your platitudes or posit as you called them were horrid shit examples that mean nothing.

also i like how you assume that i sit on my ass to let you know I am doing more then you to try and change the world, but my goals are more realistic and attainable and not pure tripe like the zeitgeist.

also please note that no one in this forum said this is as good as it gets, but before we decide to delve into an untested, and untried system that requires money to even start up (scarcity and resources be damned) we must have strong and very physical evidence. not anecdotes from some random guy.

Casemon:
@Tyler Perry
Sorry, i don't know how to communicate with people like you; people who have to throw insults and bile when their comfort zone is threatened.

If you want to grow up first, then I'm sure we can have a meaningful discussion. Until then, your immediate dismissal of anything that doesn't align with what you were taught, shows to me I'd be wasting my time.

Am not here to convince you of anything. If what is suggested does not resonate as interesting or (possibly) true to you, then you can wait and see as things deteriorate further and then ask your self why that is?

Most likely though, you'll choose to do what you've chosen to do here; ignore the call to change, don't keep up with what's happening in the world, keep your head in the sand, turn on the PS3 and pretend everything is just fine.

Good luck with that (you'll need it).

I'm sorry, but what exactly has johnstamos done here that is supposed to resonate with us? We can't even figure out what he's calling us to change. He won't tell us. We've asked him direct questions and he just ignores them and calls us ignorant for asking them. Here is what has happened so far:

Johnstamos: "Join the zeitgeist, it's really important and will save the world!"

The rest of us: "How is any of this supposed to work? Tell us exactly what you intend to do about all these problems. Support these claims you have made."

Johnstamos: "Fine you ignorant sheep, go ahead and cling to your failing system! You are unworthy of my wisdom!"

And that's it. So are you a supporter of this, too? Maybe you can answer my questions. Here, I'll copy and paste them from the first page for you. If you can answer these questions that johnstamos has avoided so far, maybe you can convince me this is worth investigating.

Lilani:

johnstamos:
This is because millions of people live their lives totally attached to a failing system that constantly exploits them. It is not arrogance on our part, it's confidence in the face of your ignorance.

Oh, my ignorance is it? Well, after that personal insult, I must say you have successfully convinced me to join your cause. Get me a T-shirt and sign me up for Zeitgeist Monthly. I'll be sure to bring my best dessert for the annual Zeitgeist potluck.

Seriously. First of all, if the "failing system" you are referring to is the monetary-based economy, then I think your numbers a bit off. It isn't "millions" of people who are attached to the system. It's billions. About seven billion to be exact at this point. Secondly, if you think there's so much to this idea, then tell me how it will work. Tell me EXACTLY how it will work. Because if you are so dedicated to this cause then obviously you see a pretty clear picture of how it's supposed to work. Otherwise, what are you believing in? So tell me how we're going to beat scarcity. Tell me how machines (which somehow never require maintenance, expansion, management, or updating) are going to give us everything we need and everything we will ever want. Tell me where all that fuel and technology will come from, and tell me what happens if it all breaks down. Because if something goes wrong somebody is going to need to know what's going on, meaning somebody is going to have to work to fix what's wrong. And don't tell me we've worked beyond errors into perfection, because there is no way that will happen. Nothing in reality is perfect, and nothing in reality ever can be perfect. We are humans, we are inherently imperfect.

And also:

Lilani:

johnstamos:
Scarcity is an illusion created by a monetary system, resource based economy does not mean a barter system.

Solar,wind,and geothermal energy can power the world far beyond coal and fossil fuels, but because of the monetary system will not be fully utilized.

And to live in such a "idealistic communist" society as so many people are attached to the idea of, I and thousands of others would gladly learn how to repair the machinery used to build our society.

For a website devoted to video gaming, i really expected a lot more people with hope in science and technology.

What about crime? You will never, EVER get all of society to voluntarily submit to one single idea. Humanity will never outgrow this while we are humans. I don't care what sort of existential crap you give me, unless we resort to mind control people will not conform to a single ideal. There is not a single question you can ask everybody in the world and get the same answer. Even if they are wrong or disagree with what they are saying, people will not conform for the sake of not conforming. If you ask what 2 + 2 is, some smartass is going to say five or fish just to be obnoxious, even though the answer of 2 + 2 is absolute and an undeniable fact. And if you push the issue hard enough, some people will gather together an make a group dedicated to always maintaining that 2 + 2 does not equal whatever the rest of the world says it equals.

So, there are people out there who will be dedicated to screwing with they system. Even if the system is absolutely perfect in every way, people will want to ruin it just because. Even if they have lived ideal lives and rebelling would destroy that ideal life. You will never convince them that they shouldn't do it. These people will have to be dealt with somehow. Do you have an automatic system for that, too? God that's a horrific science fiction movie waiting to happen. 2001 A Space Odyssey, anyone? Nobody will ever trust a system rigged to automatically punish people for suspect behavior. That isn't idealistic, that's insane, and a genocide waiting to happen. So the only way to deal with that is people. So there's some more people, working to make the world a better place.

And then you need some more people to make sure they are doing everything right, so you need some more people in another branch of authority to manage them and keep them in check, ready to punish them if they use their powers incorrectly.

And so on and so forth. Eventually you've got just about every job that existed in the previous society needing to be filled, and no guarantee that you will always have an adequate number of volunteers to fill all the positions. I mean, you promised an ideal life with no worries or roles you are required to take. You shouldn't plan for people to not take you up on that offer. Like, a LOT of people. Ever hear of the bystander effect? When you've got a lot of people in an area, people are more likely to figure "Eh, somebody else will take care of that." Even if the situation is something as immediate as somebody flying face down on pavement, people will still pass by figuring that somebody else has it under control. How do you make sure society doesn't do the same thing? Not everybody HAS to, and even those who sort of want to don't bother because they figure there are enough people out there to do the job.

You can't build something perfect based on assumptions.

And lastly, you didn't answer my original question. Tell me how the rest will work, EXACTLY how it will work. Where's the fuel for all this come from? Where do the raw materials come from? How do we deal with waste? Does everybody really get anything that they want? If so, what happens if somebody wants a planet, or to build an artificial one? Or to build a billion artificial ones? In an ideal society based on giving people all they desire for the sake of fulfilling the ambitions of humanity, who are we to say somebody's ambition is not worth it? Do we just hand over all that raw material, or deny them? What happens if it serves to detriment the rest of society?

I need convincing of all this, so get cracking.

Casemon:
@Blahblahb
To be fair, there isn't a one-line answer or evidence that illustrates these points. They are the result of years of study and for me to begin to post links, is only scratching the surface. Evidence is out there, if you only look for it. That said, knowing how forums are, can help you start:

http://www.google.com/search?q=dan+pink+motivation
http://www.google.com/search?q=gabor+mate+capitalism

But if you're too lazy to even do a single google search on your own, then maybe it isn't the time for you to hear these truths?

To say, to understand these points of view, takes more effort than hitting the Reply button! Sorry!

Why the hell should we? If you're going to make the claim that this Zeitgeist Movement is the way to go you sure as hell better be prepared to back up your claims with something a little more substantial than 'just Google it'. You don't put the burden of proof on the people you're trying to prove a claim to. That's fucking bullshit.

Casemon:
@Tyler Perry
Sorry, i don't know how to communicate with people like you; people who have to throw insults and bile when their comfort zone is threatened.

If you want to grow up first, then I'm sure we can have a meaningful discussion. Until then, your immediate dismissal of anything that doesn't align with what you were taught, shows to me I'd be wasting my time.

Am not here to convince you of anything. If what is suggested does not resonate as interesting or (possibly) true to you, then you can wait and see as things deteriorate further and then ask your self why that is?

Most likely though, you'll choose to do what you've chosen to do here; ignore the call to change, don't keep up with what's happening in the world, keep your head in the sand, turn on the PS3 and pretend everything is just fine.

Good luck with that (you'll need it).

Oh, stop it. None of you zeitgeistians has the foggiest idea how to get to this mythical utopia where there's no war, poverty or crime, outside of wishing real hard, yet when someone points this out, you get all pissy and accuse those who point this out of "having their head in the sand."

And you wonder why most of us find the people who post about this zeitgeist crap to be insufferable.

Casemon:
@Tyler Perry

Tyler Perry:

What the fuck are you talking about? The OP basically came out and said that anyone who disagreed or found any fault in his premise was a war/poverty/hunger supporter.

johnstamos:

Simply amazing how attached people are to their failure of a system.
But I am not here to try and force anyone to believe anything.
I only hope that some day people will become as tired of war,poverty,hunger and human suffering as i am.
No one is born a thief or a racist or full of greed, they are side of effects of the primitive societal structure that everyone clings to so very hard

If that is what you interpret from Johnstamos' statement, then by all means, sit back and relax, and everything will be fine! Don't worry, you're good, your pets are good, your understanding of our species is very current, and you have nothing to worry about!

But for the rest of us, you know those who will survive the end of scarcity-driven-economics, they get an entirely different understanding from what he said.

Welcome to ignore.

Trust me ... your farts don't smell that good to anyone else but you.

Rather than do everyone's homework... will make one last effort to stimulate thought so some of you at least have another chance to try to grasp the point of view the OP offered:

By widely-accepted accounts, over 15 MILLION children die of hunger every year as a result of our current values. However, today, we can grow more than enough natural organic food to feed everyone (all 7+ billion). We have the tools for this today, yet they are not used... why?

We can design things to last longer than their warranty. We have the understanding to do this, yet we do not implement such solutions... why?

In fact, using information you do not currently have, we can house everyone, feed everyone, provide relevant education to everyone, without money and without conflict. But we do not embrace such values... why?

It is scientifically proven that we prosper more together than apart (look it up lazy!). Yet we're told and educated this is not the case... why?

The answer to "why?" above is the same answer to: Who benefits from the way things are?

_________

To say by every measure, we have evolved our tools & understanding to resolve most relevant social issues.

Even to the point where no one need be excluded (no one), but yet such solutions are largely kept from implementation by the very structures that reflect our current harmful sociological values. This isn't conspiracy, this the natural result of our current values.

To claim otherwise just shows how little you understand about the mechanisms that generate the results you see everyday. Our present is not some random result from a diverse group of (faux) democratic interests, but the calculated & preferred outcome by those who benefit from exploiting the rest of us for their own gain.

Just more of the outdated concept that if you don't exploit others, then you will not prosper, because there are others who will. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Darwin never said "survival of the fittest" referring to some idea of might by domination; he stated very clearly "fittest" refers to "those most adaptive to change". And by every measure, if we don't change from our current values, we as a species will not survive. The writing is on the wall.

So you say you want a better world? Then "all you have to do" is shift your values to the increasingly evident truth: that our species will not survive the path it is on unless we shift our values.

Change then becomes a function of will. The choice is yours.

_________

Look, I really don't have time to hold everyone's hand on this, so will try instead to address the main falsehood that everyone seems to agree on here:

The idea that any change away from what we have must be completely thought out ahead of time, and anything less is not worth considering.

Do you somehow not see how ridiculous that thinking is? How is progress to ever occur, without accepting the risk of failure? And yes we will fail on the way, it's ok, it is part of learning, and life will continue.

Anything less is what some call "fear-mind" dominating your reality, clouding your judgement; some version of "I'm afraid if i don't subscribe to the status quo, then i won't eat!" Utter nonsense!

Can we not at least agree that true social change is not a blueprint as much as it is a vector / direction?

That 100% of all possible solutions are not and cannot be thought up ahead of their implementation, as our path forward is one of discovery as much as implementation?

If not, then am guessing none of you have actually done any effective work in any progressive society, and instead you'll keep milking the dead cow until it kills you.

Whether you agree or disagree, good luck to you all, my human brothers!

Casemon:
-snip-

I hope you know that this whole "You're too stupid to figure this stuff out for yourself? For-shame!" business does not make you look smart, doesn't make us more interested, and doesn't convince us of anything. All it shows us is that you care about this so little that you won't even make an effort to answer specific questions about your goal. You are claiming to know so much, but you won't prove it. Considering we are practically begging you to prove this, we are forced to conclude that the reason you won't prove us wrong is because you can't. You haven't proven anything, you haven't "won." All you've done is spout a bunch of hot air and fail to back any of it up. If this really is so important, than you should really get cracking to make sure we understand it. If you fail you only have to blame yourself for not taking the time to convince us it's worth it.

You can't blame us for not subscribing to something when you haven't given us a SINGLE reason to do so. It's not our fault, it's yours for so poorly presenting your proposal. If you don't even care about your precious movement enough to answer our simple questions--if it's not even worth YOUR time to do your homework--then why on earth should we waste our time? It's not that we want people in the world to suffer. It's that we don't want to hand over control to people who won't even bother spelling out what they want to do. Most people would call giving power to groups who won't tell you exactly what their intentions are a bad idea.

You think that true social change doesn't have a blueprint, but rather a general direction? All right. Tell us what that direction is, what we intend to find that way, and how we are supposed to get there. You want us to shift our values? What values? What does that mean? What specific actions does that entail? How is that going to affect us, both immediately and in the long run? These are specific questions you are going to have to answer if you want to convince anybody this is worth investing in. A bunch of vague and philosophical nonsense means nothing if you can't even relate it back to reality and turn it into a specific instruction. You say you can save the world, so tell us how you're going to do that. Share a bit of that infinite wisdom you have with us poor blind folk. These should be easy questions for somebody who knows how to save the world.

Somebody else posed this question, and I think it sums up my questions quite nicely. Ignore those other questions, here is the one I want you to answer, just one--If ruling power of the world's civilized countries (let's say, all the countries in the UN) were given over to the zeitgeist movement right this very second, what would you do? What SPECIFICALLY would you do? As in don't tell me "end world hunger and bring world peace." Tell me HOW you will do this along with what. HOW will you end hunger, HOW will you bring peace to the non-peaceful countries outside the UN?

Casemon:
-snip-

How about you stop insulting us and telling us the same problems over and over, and actually give us some solutions? How would this work? How? You're just wasting everyone's time.

Serge A. Storms:
All I know of the Zeitgeist movement I know from the people that tried to get me into it, and that's not a pretty picture, because it's always the late teens/early 20's I'm-the-only-self-aware-person-in-the-world-and-I-hate-my-dad crowd. It's never an economist, or a professor, or anyone that would actually know anything about how the world economy works, just people my age and younger that saw a movie online and got the impression that they were given all the secrets the Illuminati doesn't want you to know (and yet made available online).

It seems like this got more relevant as the thread went on. For me the most asinine part of the whole thing is that this movement is apparently something we're all supposed to be participating in for the good of the species, and it's supposed to be based on increasing our understanding of the world and branching out beyond our current systems and perceptions, and yet everyone that talks about it comes off like a condescending dick that "never has time" to explain anything, like responding to everyone that responds to you with a lengthy reply on how stupid they have to be to not "actually" understand the movement is done with the snap of a finger but describing even the most basic aspects of how the plan is going to be applied is a burden no man can be expected to handle. If this was the plan of the most enlightened members of the human race rather than the documentary equivalent of The Boondock Saints it would involve people that know what the fuck they're talking about responding to skepticism with clear, concise answers, not internet tough guys bitching people out for not buying into a plan no one is willing to explain or describe in any way.

@Lilani
Ignoring your obvious (and really quit silly) attempt to purposefully misconstrue my contribution here (no one said anyone is "too stupid"; that is just you showing your how well you were educated), let us instead try with something tangible...

< < All you whiners, this is the TLDR post that tries to address many of your questions > >

How to get from A to B....
Am not a prophet, however, we'll likely first focus on the issues that effect everyone equally.

Here are some base & very simple facts we can (hopefully) all agree on:

* we all need to eat natural organic food and need to drink fresh pure water (as stated by our biology; sorry Monsanto and friends!).
* we all need adequate housing.
* we all need a relevant education (not simply memorizing old language words to name everything, but functional skills in science, problem solving, working with global datasets, repurposing old things towards new prosperity, etc.).

SO asking ourselves: How do we generate results that fulfill those needs? We have understood we must first look at our values and what shapes our values today if we wish to generate different results.

Today, we're told things that are flat-out lies:

* We're told we need to fight each over resources to survive FALSE (look it up)
* We're told that we need conflict to prosper FALSE (look it up)
* We're told that without a patriarchal government, we'll descend into chaos and (oooh scary) anarchy FALSE (look it up)

So here's the general direction:
With the above in mind, our work today is two-fold:
ONE helping to generate awareness on the latest understandings of social behavior & mechanisms (part of why the OP posted here) and...
TWO working to generate systems (largely automated) to provide for the above material needs in abundance.
(most are focusing on ONE because they currently lack the technical skills to enact TWO)

Simple eh? Did you really need me to do that for you? If yes, ok, but wow!

With this, we accept the earth's resources are the common heritage of all of it's inhabitants; no one person (or group) has any right or domain to say otherwise; just as it was before some of us tried to force the empty & fear-filled concept of "ownership" on everyone else.

To state in the simplest way possible: war, poverty, crime, violence, are the RESULTS of our values, selective access to information, or "way of thinking".

Please understand, no new material solution is complete without our embracing a new value-system, one that moves away from old outdated (and typically IMAGINARY) concepts such as profit, ownership, etc. You don't get one without the other and

This value shift will come about naturally as we seek to better understand our world and discover increasingly the lies that we've been told (in order for a small group to prosper at the expense of everyone else).

Do you really think we've come far from aristocracy in the days of old? Sure the "rules to play" have changed, but we still have a small anti-social group seeking to dominate others by exclusion, telling them lies, limiting their access to information, adding to the suffering on this planet, etc.

We're barely out of the dark ages people... time we own up to it no?

_______________

Such, in the (near) future, you'll be able to choose to continue working at your dead-end, soul-crushing service job to eat and feed your family, or find other reasons to work & simply eat the food that is abundant on this earth, expressed by our most evolved (non-scarcity-driven) tools.

And before you spout off more lies that "no one will do the work if no money!!!OMGG!@!!", the people who will maintain the systems are the same people who work for free (or low wages) to better the world today; doctors, teachers, scientists, humanitarians, etc. In other words, decent respectful people who exist today?

Same with housing; utilizing our best tools here to generate modular solutions, available in a sufficiently diverse combination of possibilities, to account for a wide-variety of tastes & goals. We have the means to develop these technologies today. They don't yet exist (beyond an early form) because there is little advantage to implementing them in a profit-motivated system. But here's something showing what is to come (skyscraper built by modules in 360hrs): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdpf-MQM9vY

And yes, it is true, if you really want some aberrant anti-social thing like 100000 gold toilet seats in your 6000 acre mansion that you live alone in, the community value of utilizing our shared resources for such a purpose will be measured and weighed and will likely prove your idea is not a good use of resources... but using math not politicians.

Mostly likely anyone who wants such a thing for themselves at the (resource) cost of diminished prosperity of everyone else will be treated as they are... UNWELL.

But really that is a moot point, as our up-to-date behavioral information shows such desire cannot exist with values that encourage mutual prosperity of our human family; it won't be much of an issue at all. Logically it is "non-point" to apply today's values towards tomorrow's reality; like asking "how would a caveman prosper if he doesn't have a driver's license!" Silly.

_______________

If all this change sounds like a scary movie to you, no, this is not The Terminator (why do you think those fear-based movie ideas get funding over other less-fear based ideas? ANSWER: they support the values of the oppressive status-quo.), no this is not Technocracy (those elitist assholes), no this is not Communism, Socialism, or any other 'ism or outdated concept you want to call it.

This is nothing that has come before it and there is no little box to try to cram it in; trying to pigeon-hole it into something else makes you look like at best as an ignoramus (sorry!)

All the above said, this is just an overview. All of the above is already in progress; IN EARLY STAGES... our time today is like the calm before the storm!

If you have pointed questions about this, or think this will fail for blah blah blah... I CHALLENGE YOU TO DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH before concluding. Challenge the old ideas you were fed. What would you lose by doing this? At best, the ideas are either proven wrong somehow, your old views are validated and yet we're still left with the problem of how to survive this adolescent phase of humanity of "me me me" or the ideas have more to them than you understood at the start, and now live in a world where you have actually learned something new.

What do you have to lose? These ideas will still be here once you're done.

In any case, see you on the other side (of our value paradigm)!

Extremely short version:

We put away outdated ideas like thinking a person (president, governor, mayor, etc.) is the best possible solution for our increasingly complex technical problems and instead use our technical tools to solve our technical problems:

* Hunger solutions = vertical hydroponic farming, modular reusable systems (we have this today, look it up if you don't know what this is).
* Housing solutions = modular prefab components, self building systems (we have both today)
* Clean energy solutions = geo-thermal wicks (we have these today, ask Iceland), wave-power, etc.
* Labor solutions = automation; such is inevitable in a profit scheme anyway. We already have the early forms of this today; why, just the other day I ate at an all automated sushi restaurant in Italy (of all places)!

THAT AND we continue to shift our focus away from fighting each other over who should have won that last case of Judge Judy, towards mutual compassion for all living things, human prosperity (for all), expanding our notions of growth & understanding, sharing information equally, without exception, to ensure our human family's survival and for the betterment of our species (what both the TV and the Internet were supposed to help foster)

Sound impossible? Sound like Utopia? Such thinking is exactly what you have been programmed to think. That any call to change is impossible.

It is also similar to what the leading minds of the day told the Wright Brothers (or Copernicus, or Mme Curie, or Einstein, etc.) before they went forward, ignored old fear-based thinking, and worked to change the world for the better (with mixed results).

And yes, indeed Utopia is impossible; but Utopia can never exist... instead we constantly evolve. Understand the difference yet?

Try to understand there's a lot more to these ideas than can be adequately expressed in forums, but what these ideas suggest is simply the result of applied values over time (similar to why war, poverty, crime, violence are dominant today), except the values that embody these ideas, stem from appeals to healthy living for all, not exploitation by domination (as we have today).

Change the values, you change the environment, you change the community, you change the world.

I say, be better than fear?

Can you?

Its one of the common ideologies surrounding many things.

Real concerns about our society, world, reality.
Idea on how to solve said concerns.
Inadequate planning, thought or details relating to the physical confines of our reality.

Now I watched the full length Zeitgeist video... I mean... don't denounce what you don't know (I skipped through the "dramatic ending revolution" scene).

Now the first section is talking loosely about how malleable we humans are, and how easily we can change the way we think... which is true... sort of... as in it would happen over several generations and would only work if the system worked and the implementation of getting everyone's children on-board would be hard short of brainwashing, or removal from parental influence. The problem is obviously implementation, and a fuller understanding of human psychology and the brain... which we really do not have. That and the ethical black hole as they would need to address the attitude taught to individual's subtracts from their free will or is merely the logical approach.

The Second part is about rife financial corruption, which I as studying economics can back up is there and is a damn large problem. The US Federal Reserve also having no control by the USA's legislator or executive is bloody crazy, the calls for it to be scrapped unnecessary if it wasn't doing crazy shit in the first place. Max Keiser a Journalist (who has an income of $6 million a year) who made his money as a trader and financier by setting up a company designed to short sell stock on the prediction of it falling and wrote an analyst program. He happily exposes the system he worked for and contributed to and what he said in the segment is true for a large part. He mentioned in Wall Street that they have machines with complex algorithms which chip money off of the value of money. I do that... I work from my computer, and I take the risk on behalf of the company of selling or buying share for them, set against a price and I chip money off of values of currency. Morally I may as well have the blood of little African children on my hands... but this is merely chipping money for yourself off of a currency, not creating money that has no wealth to back it up and pocketing it for yourself.
The issue here with Zeitgeism is... the systems has problems and the people who cause them in my opinion should be burned alive? Me... I'm small fry. If you allocated different amounts of fuel to different guilt people then I might just burn my finger nail while the real crooked people scream past me. The proposed solution of abolition of the current system is the same as that of UKIP in the UK. Fuck it, it's not working or ever going to work although it's the only thing in the last XXXX years that has worked but scrap it anyway, and lets use something different.

Finally there is the solution. The mass new mega Metropolis' that is meant to house, feed and satisfy the entire human race... well on the face of it it seems sensible and it is a good suggestion... if they did exactly as they said. If we had an identical world with no humans but all the resources from thousands of years ago and our current level of scientific understanding... oh yeah... shit... we don't have that. Frankly the trauma of moving all the Human race into the new area's would be more traumatic per person than Mao's "Great Leap Forward"... just that many people, all those resources, all the over night automation... it would take a good 100 years to change our system, and yet that system would be one that relies on compliance as part of its members where that would be impossible with some... unless you took their children and educated them, and left their parents in the outside world to die, or purposefully killed them off.

It's a good idea but, like most when taken off of paper it severely falls short... it has just as good a chance of working as an openly gay, Atheist American of chinese heritage has of getting elected in the next 30 years... Times are changing but not that fast...

for every free thinker you listed there were probably several thousand whack jobs with actually crazy ideas that would be bound to fail.

I'm sorry for saying this, but the zeitgeist movement, even if it got going, would be bound to fail.

and you mention something about humans not being violent by nature, what about scared, greedy, apathetic, or proud? surely these things would have to be suppressed (by Equilibrium style drugs or something) for the plan to work.

And I don't want to live in a world without feelings or emotions.

Also, organic food can only feed 4 billion people, so I'm not quite sure what's up with that. Do you have some kind of vendetta against Norman Borlaug (who is responsible for saving over 1 billion lives)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

I think the OP was afraid of specifics because he was fearful of people proving him wrong.

@LoFr3Eq

LoFr3Eq:
for every free thinker you listed there were probably several thousand whack jobs with actually crazy ideas that would be bound to fail.

I'm sorry for saying this, but the zeitgeist movement, even if it got going, would be bound to fail.

Surely we won't get out from under all this with your attitude! Ok, that was a joke (at your expense, sorry) but to prove a point:

We can do just about anything we put our minds to; as evidenced by the (known) history of the world to date. Someone wiser than me stated: "whether we think we can or we think we cannot... Either way, we are right." and have found that is generally true.

To say failure is just a welcomed part of success... we shouldn't try to hide from it.

Just ask Michael Jordan. Back in the day, some enterprising journalist, hoping for a juicy sound-bite, asked Jordan how he felt when he just beat the world record for most free throws. His reply? "I'm also the world record holder in most MISSED free-throws"

LoFr3Eq:
and you mention something about humans not being violent by nature, what about scared, greedy, apathetic, or proud? surely these things would have to be suppressed (by Equilibrium style drugs or something) for the plan to work.

And I don't want to live in a world without feelings or emotions.

Such can never result from what these ideas propose without seriously missing the fucking point. You seem to be ignoring the inherit values to these ideas and only looking at the tech, but you might be interested in the some of the research these ideas are founded on...

Short version: latest studies have shown that our behavior is dictated largely by environment. If our environment doesn't encourage harmful behavior, then the harmful behavior does not exist (like a virus without a host).

What we propose is working together to generate results that embrace that understanding, to shift our values such that an environment where greed, apathy, war, poverty, crime, etc. are deemed not only unnecessary, but are wholly unacceptable.

Without an environment to encourage harmful emotions, those emotions don't survive. Think about it... why does a guy rob someone else? Because some base need is not being met...

In a world where most base needs are met, there are no robbers. It is a simplistic example, but one backed by modern knowledge (i.e. not that crap we were taught in school)

LoFr3Eq:
Also, organic food can only feed 4 billion people, so I'm not quite sure what's up with that. Do you have some kind of vendetta against Norman Borlaug (who is responsible for saving over 1 billion lives)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

I think the OP was afraid of specifics because he was fearful of people proving him wrong.

First off, the statement: "organic food can only feed 4 billion people" is an outright lie. Whomever told you that, secretly hates you (think about it).

The only thing I have against Borlaug is that he was born almost 100 years ago, such that his understanding is outdated, and thus he cannot reasonably be considered the go-to-guy on using modern tools for human prosperity.

Yes, cheers to him trying to feed people in an environment of unnecessary scarcity, but his views on GMO (and thus his stats on organic food) are based wholly on an OUTDATED understanding of yields from specific notions of "arable land".

Similar to text vs video, land is the simplest AND least-efficient means to growing natural food in abundance. Hydroponics & aeroponics (neither of which Borlaug included in his work) have evolved to offer far better yields than dirt farming can provide, and they do so in less time, in less space, with 80% fewer resources, and with no need for sketchy franken-food or some corporation owning the patent on the genome of rice (disgusting).

That whole "we can only feed the world by franken-food" myth has been disproven by so many, am surprised you'd even bring it up. Start here?
http://www.google.com/search?q=GMO+myths

p.s. captchas at Escapist are funny... mine was "never give up"! haha.

Casemon:
* Hunger solutions = vertical hydroponic farming, modular reusable systems (we have this today, look it up if you don't know what this is).
* Housing solutions = modular prefab components, self building systems (we have both today)
* Clean energy solutions = geo-thermal wicks (we have these today, ask Iceland), wave-power, etc.
* Labor solutions = automation; such is inevitable in a profit scheme anyway. We already have the early forms of this today; why, just the other day I ate at an all automated sushi restaurant in Italy (of all places)!

There, you see? That wasn't so hard. This is what I was wanting, some solid proposed solutions, not all that pretentious, existential rubbish (and we could have done without the arrogant "I know something you don't know" schtick, as well). You could have saved yourself a lot of typing if you had just skipped the fluff and gone right to the details. If you want the TL;DR, go to the part I've bolded.

So, first. About that hunger. Hydroponic farming sounds fine, not sure what you mean by "modular reusable systems" though. I feel like that means we re-use the hardware once the plants are harvested, which I sort of thought was already common practice. I have never heard of a farmer who buys a new tractor and harvester every new growing season.

Housing solutions, self-building systems...in what way do we have that today? Last I checked we still need people to build stuff, we haven't quite gotten to where we can use robots to build stuff without our help. Well, at least complete stuff. Sure we can get robots to build cars, but even then there are LOTS of humans involved for final checks and getting things just right. And I'm fairly certain we don't have robots we can plop on an empty lot and say "Here, build me a house!" and come back a couple of months later and there's a house standing there.

Clean energy solutions...see, there's a funny thing about geothermal energy. It relies upon the energy boiling up from volcanic hotspots. And it is highly efficient, except there's one thing you're forgetting there. Volcanoes. Earthquakes. Tectonic plates. All that geological stuff. See, the earth isn't still, and neither are volcanoes. In fact, you should look up Yellowstone Park. See, Yellowstone isn't just a fun place for hot springs and Old Faithful. Yellowstone Park is an active volcano. A supervolcano, to be exact. See, supervolcanoes are volcanoes where, when they blow, they literally affect the entire earth. When they erupt, the debris and pyroclastic flows cover thousands and thousands of miles. The last time it blew, it covered more than 60% of the continental US and went well into Canada. And not only that, the sheer amount of force that came from the eruption caused other volcanoes on the other side of the earth to erupt, and caused multiple earthquakes at fault lines.

And here's the kicker. According to geologic evidence, Yellowstone tends to blow about every 600,000 years. And do you know how long it's been since it last erupted? 605,000 years. We're overdue. The volcano that WILL wipe out most of the US is passed its time. It could go at any moment. Sure, we'll probably see a bit more seismic activity as a warning, but it won't be enough time. It will cover hundreds of miles in minutes, and thousands in hours.

So where does that fit into your big plan? The next thing you've got listed is labor solutions. Alright, so machines can run everything. Nobody has to do anything else again. Nobody has to learn survival skills, or know how to fend for themselves in dire situations. So what about that? What about global natural disasters? What happens if the infrastructure is damaged beyond the point of automatic repair? How much will people be thanking the machines when they are stranded and have not a clue what to do about it?

Okay, I'll give you the short version of where this is going. I have three new questions for you.

One: How do you make sure there are enough people willing to actually work and know how to fix things? In a society where nobody is required to do anything and only a few are needed to keep things running, how do you make sure there's never a time where there aren't enough volunteers? What do you do about the bystander effect? You can't just assume there will be enough people. A perfect system can never rely upon assumptions, there must always be a solution.

Two: What about crime? As I explained to johnstamos, unless we resort to brainwashing you are not going to get the entire human race to conform to a single idea. I don't care how perfect your utopia is, there will always be somebody who decides to throw a wrench in it for shits and giggles. It doesn't matter if they have everything to lose, they will do it. You will never expunge this from humanity without expunging our individuality and ability to think for ourselves. Who takes care of that? The machines? I'm sure that would go over well, machines which decide who gets punished and who doesn't. Again, 2001: A Space Odyssey comes to mind. And if it's people that run the system, again, how do you make sure you've got enough? And who decides what behavior is acceptable? What about mistakes--what if some woman says she's been raped but the guy says he didn't? Again, these things are inherent of humanity, even if it is a total misunderstanding. Who deals with that?

Three: If machines are running everything, what are people doing? Wait, I can figure this one out. Let me guess, we are creating and exploring our true potential as a race? Marvelous. So where are the raw materials coming from? What we have here isn't going to last forever. Even the volcanoes our geothermal plants are sitting on will blow up, including the whole planet eventually. So what happens when we use up all we've got on earth? Do we go and explore other planets? If we're going to go joyriding throughout the galaxy searching for new raw materials to make our little projects with, we're going to need to be ready to encounter other alien races. Other alien races, mind, which could very well have regular governments and expect us to have one, too. Who represents us in that case? What happens if they think we're a threat, or just downright don't like us and attacks?

I guess that is a fourth question, and as far-fetched as it sounds this IS a utopia that is supposed to last forever, so every possibility must be taken into account. How do we defend ourselves? Who deals with the other aliens and makes sure we can always get our raw materials? Or is this one for the machines, as well? Fine, but remember we still need a contingency plan. What if the aliens don't want to deal with a machine, what if they want a flesh and blood person? How do we decide who that is? I'm sure there would be a lot of competition for that spot. What happens if the machine fails and we have to deal with diplomacy ourselves? Remember, perfect system always needs a backup, always needs a way to deal with ANY possibility.

But you know, I feel like you didn't come up with this on your own. See, it's funny how you think that at the point in the future when we can have machines that can literally run the entire human race on auto-pilot, we will still be relying on something old and temporary like geothermal energy and not some crazy safe-and-efficient space technology like hydrogen or super-efficient solar energy. Which leads me to believe this isn't a well-thought-out master plan in which REAL theoretical technologies have been researched and taken into account both time and future discoveries. No, this is a patchwork plan based on totally made up future technology with no basis in reality, spliced together with enough known technology to give it an illusion of feasibility. Again, I can sit here all night and poke holes in this plan. But if you think you can patch them up, please do. I was quite surprised you actually bothered to give me the solid rundown of your plan. Now, if you defend it, I'll find that downright impressive.

Casemon:
We can do just about anything we put our minds to; as evidenced by the (known) history of the world to date.

No, this is completely wrong. What can be achieved is impressive, but there are limits.

The sort of society you seem to envisage is simply not going to happen in the forseeable future.

Not because, as you seem to think, it's a new and radical idea that people are afraid of or don't understand. Because it's a very old idea that people are trying to put into place, and have been trying to put into place for generations, and have failed to do so.

Yes, a society in which people co-operated more so there was enough for everyone would obviously be better, but it's not going to happen to any great extent anytime soon. In a few hundred years, perhaps. I personally doubt it, but we can certainly move further towards it.

In the meantime, the societies we have now, with all the flaws you quite rightfully object to, are about the closest we can get. Very many people fought long and hard to get things as good as it is, and very many people are fighting long and hard to improve on it.

@thaluikhain
You make a lot of claims that something is impossible. Evidence?

Rather than bitching at us for being unimaginative lazy slobs, I would suggest that you look at this from the other direction. Even among those of us quite familiar with the Zeitgeist movement and its premise, so far as we can tell, the concept is no more grounded in reality than the civilizations we read about in novels or play through in games.

I'm all for talking about how we can improve the current situation, in terms of workable solutions we can implement right now, rather than theoretical solutions that depend on conditions we can't currently meet, or, as in the case of some of the ideas you listed, solutions that don't actually help.

Casemon:

* Hunger solutions = vertical hydroponic farming, modular reusable systems (we have this today, look it up if you don't know what this is).

Already being done for the first, the only opposition to it that I'm aware of is the high upfront cost, which plenty of people are willing to deal with. The second has little to do with the food industry that I'm aware of unless there's a specific subcategory. Regardless, modular systems tend to be significantly less efficient to build and use. It only becomes a good idea when the ability to swap universal parts around becomes more desirable than having one configuration that works and lasts extremely well.

* Housing solutions = modular prefab components, self building systems (we have both today)

modular prefabricated units for general housing is extremely questionable. Mostly because it is impossible for them to retain the same level of structural strength as a properly constructed building, which becomes a wee bit of a problem in areas with severe weather, earthquakes, etc.

* Clean energy solutions = geo-thermal wicks (we have these today, ask Iceland), wave-power, etc.

geothermal plants cause a great deal of water pollution when done on a large scale and the areas they can be used in are extremely limited. Tidal systems are even worse in the latter respect for obvious reasons, and tend to disrupt/destroy large segments of aquatic life. Try again, there isn't a single clean energy system in existence that doesn't have serious issues when attempting to apply it on a large scale. (in its present form at any rate, solar has great potential, but only if we can get to gathering energy while not impeded by the atmosphere, gogo gadget superconductive space elevator.)

* Labor solutions = automation; such is inevitable in a profit scheme anyway. We already have the early forms of this today; why, just the other day I ate at an all automated sushi restaurant in Italy (of all places)!

Automation on a large scale only helps our situation if people already don't have to work. For it to be of any benefit in this scenario, you would have to already be providing those resources ahead of time, otherwise you're causing far more misery than you help.

This whole mess is dwarfed by the simple fact that none of this answers where the resources for all of this will come from. Even if we manage to give the physical law of entropy the finger in order to have unlimited energy production and 100% efficient recycling/reuse on all products/materials, there still would not be enough physically available for the current world's population to be able to use at the same time, much less the world's population 10,20,30, or more years down the road when we might actually expect this to happen.

thaluikhain:
In the meantime, the societies we have now, with all the flaws you quite rightfully object to, are about the closest we can get.

Now that's just complete bull. This corrupted, bloated mess of bullshit is not the best humanity can offer, not by a longshot.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked