The zeitgeist movement

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Lilani:

OneCatch :

Agreed. A "spoked wheel" layout would be much more efficient, and would more accurately symbolize a totally equal society. Have people living in a center hub, and then have all the different industries (Agriculture, power, water, hospitals, etc) branch off that hub into a circle, like the spokes of a bicycle (which is also the layout of the Magic Kingdom of Walt Disney World. The design was specifically chosen for its simplicity and efficiency).

Plus, if everything forms a nice big circle, that reflects back to the round table where everybody is equal and nobody is at the "head" of the table. As you said, a concentric city would hold set up a built-in hierarchy, which would weigh on people's minds. And it would be terribly inefficient, having to cross through all those other areas to get from one end to the other. My only guess behind the logic of that sort of a setup is to have a city which is aesthetically different from any other modern cities (or the ones who came up with it were fans of the Lord of the Rings and wanted to pay homage to Minas Tirith).

Exactly - whoever came up with the idea did it purely as a way of making themselves look different and 'radical' rather than actually thinking about what would be the most pragmatic and socially consistent way of organising this 'future society'.
Come to think of it, that sentence pretty much seems to describe the entire Zeitgeist movement!

johnstamos:
you seem very unclear on how a resource based economy works.
Please as a fellow human being, I would ask you to watch zeitgeist:addendum

I fell asleep half way through. Sorry mate... It just didn't tickle my pickle.

Magichead:

Why? No really, I'm serious, why? [[I'm going to stop here and note that I do not, in any way, support the loons being referred to in the OP, however...]] If technology reaches a level of automation of resource gathering, refining, production, and self-maintenance where the only "cost" of an object is energy(also "free"), then what point is there in current orthodox economics?

Just because some whackjobs have jumped on this concept doesn't mean the concept itself is bunk; it's speculative, certainly, but there are entire scientific institutes devoted to researching ways to make it happen. I mean hell, who would buy into the idea that the current system we've devised is the best we can devise, and that its core principles will forever drive human socio-economic interaction? THAT'S hubris, if anything ever was.

There's no particular reason that the speculative technology in question can't or shouldn't be used if it can be made to work. The problems I have are with the predictions inherent to this idea

-Humanity will not magically and universally change into happy productive altruists if given all the toys they might otherwise scheme to steal or cheat out of others. Things can and would certainly improve along those lines, but not nearly to the degree or at the rate suggested.
-There are issues with energy supply that won't be solved with the concepts currently on hand. At present, responsible use of green energy systems can only be made to supplement fossil fuel and nuclear power. They can't replace them without causing major problems of their own. There are a few possible clean systems that might work in terms of providing functionally unlimited energy, ranging from solar stations in space with a superconductive connection to the ground, to controlled fusion, to antimatter annihilation, but none of these are at present functional, and with the exception of controlled fusion, we don't even posses vital pieces of progressive tech to make it work.
-IF we get all the energy we could ever use, and IF we somehow discover a means to efficiently recombine that energy into matter, a truly post scarcity society is possible. Those are big ifs however, especially since we currently have no reason to believe that the second condition is even possible for us to manage. If those conditions are not met, the Earth quite simply doesn't have enough of any resource to treat as functionally unlimited.

Heronblade:
-There are issues with energy supply...

-... If those conditions are not met, the Earth quite simply doesn't have enough of any resource to treat as functionally unlimited.

References on how energy supply is virtually unlimited: http://youtu.be/5MhOunTOfgE
10 prototype technologies in the first 20 min.

And better than needing any one resource to be unlimited is:
1) Reducing their use while giving more access to goods to more people - http://www.zipcar.com is one good exemple of this way of thinking [instead of owning a car and having it remain parked for the majority of the time, just go to "any" available car and wave your zip-card, it unlocks and off you go].
2) Truly re-using resources by incorporating recycling considerations in the very design of each product (Cradle2Cradle design - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle-to-cradle_design)

Cheers! ^_^

Katatori-kun:

keiskay:
the zeit geist movement was originally about "waking" people up

Nothing turns me off of a movement more than the notion that people who aren't in it need to be "woken up". It takes a special type of arrogance to not just refuse to accept that people have good reasons for not agreeing with you, but that your position is so self-evident that the only way someone could disagree with it was if they were unaware of reality in general.

Oh god this. The word "sheeple" instantly makes my brain scream "arrogant twat" at astounding levels and i find it hard to take anything they say seriously. This applies to this movement too.

WurmD:

Heronblade:
-There are issues with energy supply...

-... If those conditions are not met, the Earth quite simply doesn't have enough of any resource to treat as functionally unlimited.

References on how energy supply is virtually unlimited: http://youtu.be/5MhOunTOfgE
10 prototype technologies in the first 20 min.

And better than needing any one resource to be unlimited is:
1) Reducing their use while giving more access to goods to more people - http://www.zipcar.com is one good exemple of this way of thinking [instead of owning a car and having it remain parked for the majority of the time, just go to "any" available car and wave your zip-card, it unlocks and off you go].
2) Truly re-using resources by incorporating recycling considerations in the very design of each product (Cradle2Cradle design - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle-to-cradle_design)

Cheers! ^_^

I did not watch the whole video, just skimmed through for a summary of the presented concepts. I'm fairly confident I got the gist of it and will not be returning to watch more, although I do apologize if I missed something actually important. Every last idea I spotted I've seen before. One of them, concerning solar power in space, I already mentioned as a viable possibility for primary energy production, but it requires a means to get the energy back to earth that is simply not yet possible. The rest trend towards ideas for improving the efficiency of existing systems by small amounts. While they're excellent ideas, and I would certainly advocate many of them being put into practice for future use, none of them solve the problems I mention, and even with the improvements, don't allow for those systems to beat the efficiency of either fossil fuels or nuclear fission.

It is physically impossible to completely recover any material used in a product, even if we had enough material to build everything everyone could want at once to begin with. Again, improving reuse/recycle rates will help, and I would certainly advocate doing so, but it doesn't solve the issue, the world's supply of any and all materials will deplete over time.

Lilani:

Magichead:

Lilani:
Ah, okay. I think I have heard of this, then. Really? A world where machines can produce EVERYTHING we need, without us EVER having to feed or maintain the machines themselves? Who could buy into that? Yes, humans are awesome and all, but nothing is infinite and we will always have to work to maintain a certain standard of living.

Why? No really, I'm serious, why? [[I'm going to stop here and note that I do not, in any way, support the loons being referred to in the OP, however...]] If technology reaches a level of automation of resource gathering, refining, production, and self-maintenance where the only "cost" of an object is energy(also "free"), then what point is there in current orthodox economics?

Just because some whackjobs have jumped on this concept doesn't mean the concept itself is bunk; it's speculative, certainly, but there are entire scientific institutes devoted to researching ways to make it happen. I mean hell, who would buy into the idea that the current system we've devised is the best we can devise, and that its core principles will forever drive human socio-economic interaction? THAT'S hubris, if anything ever was.

Well, what I was referring to there was that there are LITERALLY only so many raw materials on this planet. There's only so much metal, precious metal, dirt, clay, air, water, etc. If humanity keeps expanding, which some situation like the zeitgeist would allow, and people are allowed to have as much of these resources as they want without personal cost, there will be a point where the amount available is not limited by the cost but by the literal amount that physically exists on the planet.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to improve, I'm just saying this process in the long-term is a LOT more complicated than build magic machines that give us everything we want >>> live on auto-pilot for eternity. Later I also got into how LOOONG into the future (which, if this truly is a perfect system, should still exist that far into the future), we will have to deal with the eventual destruction of the earth via the expansion and dying of the sun, and by then possibly aliens as we go to other worlds searching for more real estate and raw materials. But then the person arguing for it called me a loony for trying to think so far ahead (even though he was claiming this was supposed to be a perfect system that will last humanity forever).

There are estimated to be enough resources available for exploitation in the solar system to last for 10,000 years at current rate of consumption, 4000 years if we follow the current rate of increase in usage through population growth etc, and those numbers assume recycing as it is today with absolutely terrible efficiency and a limited palette of materials. I'll try and find the article I remember reading those numbers in.

As for the long long long LONG term; all those issues will happen under the current system regardless. Right now, today, commercial entities are eyeing-up solar resources, they're going to be launching remote survey drones into the asteroid belt within the next couple of years ffs. Capitalism, market economics as a whole, utilises resources at an insane rate, and worse only drives efficiency where that efficiency will reduce direct financial costs to the business, not when it's REQUIRED for our long-term survival.

As for the sun burning out; I'm a moon-brained futurist, and even I'm not capable of coming up with a plan to deal with the next five billion years and also change the essential workings of a star. Not being able to do either of those things doesn't appear to be a mark against capitalism, so why should it be a mark against any alternative system?

EDIT: Heronblade, you seem to be under the misapprehension that I have any problem whatsoever with nuclear energy. On the contrary, I think the opposition to nuclear is largely based on ignorance and fear driven by poor science education, poor maths education, and a sensationalist media, and I would be more than happy to see modern Type-3 and Thorium reactors become our primary source of energy for the next century until, hopefully, we get deuterium-deuterium fusion up and running.

You also seem to think I'm some vague utopian, I'm not, this isn't about creating an ideal society or fixing the flaws in humanity's character, it's simply about my belief that if we have the capability to eliminate suffering, then it is imperative we do so, and if we do not have that ability yet, we have a responsibility to work towards it. Automation on the scale offered by "post-scarcity"(technically, semantically, there can be no such thing, since the universe is not infinite as far as we can tell, but the term serves its purpose by conveying the idea), if applied properly as part of a managed system rather than by the few for the benefit only of the few as automation has been so far under capitalism, would eliminate vast amounts of suffering. I think that's a worthwhile endeavour.

even if the whole thing falls flat on its ass, they might come up with some practical solutions to some issues, that said the only way to tell is to actually start a comunity and try things out. thats where the problems start. its easy to get people to like things on facebook, its easy to get people to spout off and support on the net but actually getting off their ass to do something in the real world is an entirely different matter

OK so.
I dident read what has been said, because Im in a rush right now.
Heres my opinion. I think that people who follow TVP(the venus project),FWC(free world charter),TZM(the zeitgeist movement) etc or any science for abundance aplied to the social condition of humans, blindly is not criticaly thinking, which is what the whole movement is about.

People who say "this is a load of bullshit communism with commuptors, NEVER WORK!!!111oneoneone"-with no valid points, or points that have been answerd a billion times and anyone aruging that has not read a book, read all 105 f&Q's(on the venus projects website), researched alot etc, is just being an idiot.If you dont want to take the time to research into the possiblitys that the movement proposes, then you are in no postion to say one way or another if its possible.

Heres the deal.
We want to solve the things this movement is trying to solve. It offers solutions. But will they work? This is what you have to find out. So heres were its at : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoNsOnj9KpU

Steaming from this is debate and dicussion.

We need to go through everything this movement is saying locicaly and with valid arguments. If you find a flaw that means the implementation of an RBE would be worse than this system, then we need to start back at the drawing bored and try again. If not, then we need to spread it far and wide with motion pictures, social media means, movements simular to occupy(but will not be fragmment and will have a set purpose) and set up a parallel goverment as the (I think) best proposed transitional method.

The difficulty is, that we are not all experts. What we need is experts, un-biased ones, to discuss it.

Anononeone:
The difficulty is, that we are not all experts. What we need is experts, un-biased ones, to discuss it.

I'll tell you what we have: convincing evidence that the vast majority of Zeitgeist is about as well-founded as Loose Change and Answers In Genesis. I didn't even understand what the hell the rest of your post was on about, because it's completely fragmented and full of abbreviations I've never seen before. What I did notice, though, is this classic formulation: "Anyone who follows X blindly is a SHEEP!" The hidden implication, of course, being that everyone is following X blindly, and therefore everyone that follows X is a sheep. Buddy, here's a tip. If, at any point in your life, you are brought to believe that everyone who believes in/follows something does so blindly and without thinking, and you have the inclination to refer to them as "sheep", then something has almost always gone wrong, and you really need to double- and triple-check your position to ensure that you aren't making an ass of yourself.

Anyone else notice the simple interesting correlation that two accounts that have been made within 24h of eachother, both post their first posts - with similar content - to the same thread?

And the first one has the not-at-all-spoof-accounty username Anon one one?

David Close:
A resource based economy will make all the worlds resources the common heritage of all the worlds people, without waste, polution and scarcity of resources...

And this is the point where you lose all credibility. A world without waste, pollution, or scarcity of resources is an intriguing fantasy, but that's all it is. You can't get from here to there. Pollution will always be an issue unless we move back to an agrarian society. Waste will always be a factor because humans are short-sighted and stupid at times. Removing scarcity of resources at this point means, more or less, taking people's jobs; while being able to conjure anything at will sounds like a great thing, I sincerely have my doubts that it won't follow the same route as it always has - new technology leads to those with the new technology prospering and the workers without getting screwed.

Star Trek was fantasy. Zeitgeist is too.

Stagnant:

David Close:
A resource based economy will make all the worlds resources the common heritage of all the worlds people, without waste, polution and scarcity of resources...

And this is the point where you lose all credibility. A world without waste, pollution, or scarcity of resources is an intriguing fantasy, but that's all it is. You can't get from here to there. Pollution will always be an issue unless we move back to an agrarian society.

Actually, even then it would be, because in many cases the produced waste and effects of euthropication per ton of end material is higher when industrial fertilizers aren't used (they are almost always less when compared on per area basis).

Feeding everyone alive today, much less a greater population, pretty much isn't possible without industrial fertilizers.

Which in turn require, surprise surprise, industry to create. Chemicals and machinery.

And there is no such thing as machinery that creates no pollution to manufacture, maintain, repair and/or dispose of at the end of it's lifecycle. Recycling can certainly reduce the amount of waste, but it patently cannot eliminate it (as there isn't such a thing as 100% efficiency)

Hence, pollution and waste.

Reading Zeitgeists and technocratics' utopian idea for technology feels like listening to greenpeace talk energy politics: It's all fine, if you simply ignore a few fundamental laws of nature regarding the physics and chemistry of the topic.

David Close:
...caused by your ignorance of how the world works...

See, I was just about to congratulate you, Johnstamos and Casemon (because we all know it's just you two again but with different accounts ;-) ) for dropping the "you all are just too dumb for our awesome movement" attitude, which would have done wonders for your overall presentation and credibility. But it seems arrogance and the zeitgeist just go hand in hand.

You can have your Utopia. I'm not going to bother making any more long posts here, because no matter what you tell me, I would never want to join your movement because it would mean having to fraternize with a bunch of self-righteous blowhards who are only interested in putting themselves above the rest of the world. Really, even if your whole movement wasn't based on existential fluff and dust, you probably have the worst PR of any nonviolent movement that's ever existed. It's almost as though you don't want people to agree with you (which wouldn't surprise me, because if you got enough people you'd have to actually get up and do something). Incredible.

I strongly suspect, like Lilani above, that this is just an alt account to bypass your original failed attempt. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and answer at least this one post seriously.

David Close:

in response to the previous comment above: Anononeone is saying that anyone who follows a group, religion or train of thought without first researching the group, whatever it may be about is a SHEEP, The Zeitgeist Movement, of which i am a member, asks people to fully explore and research all the information given and to come to your own understandings...

None of the information given provides answers for the critical questions raised in this thread. Thus far, all of the videos and other resources posted in this thread amount to simple propaganda. Basically stating that if we can do X, life will be great, without actually formulating a plan to achieve X. If that information is all you actually have on the Zeitgeist movement, then you definitely have not actually done your research.

A resource based economy is quite simple, it is not a utopia or comunism or socialism, it is quite litterrally applying all our current understandings to society in such a way that benefits all the worlds people, iradicating war, poverty, starvation, scarcity etc, and it could quite easily be done if everyone got behind it and made it happen...

How do we achieve it? (P.S. the official definition of that term simply refers to a nation that mostly produces and sells raw resources rather than a finished product. Mr. Fresco apparently didn't do HIS research when "inventing" the concept you are referring to.)

Humanity is currently in what i call the last stage of uncivilised development, all the problems that we see in the world today are unnecessary and could be iradicated with tha application of technology and science...

Yes and no, we can certainly do much better than we currently are, but no technology or social advances currently available or on the horizon is capable of eradicating all of our problems. If you have actual data that suggests otherwise, share it.

Some people think that it is human nature to be competetive, which has been proven to be untrue, we are all subjects to our environment, and in our current capitalist environment, we are indoctrinated into a system of competition, infinate growth and corrption, which is self destructive at its core...

Dead wrong, humanity's competitive nature has been proven by both biologists and sociologists over and over and over again. We are products of both biology and society. A capitalistic society supports and amplifies such tendencies, that is true, but it does not create them. If you want a truly non competitive group of humans, you are going to have to grow your own in a laboratory, good luck making sure they still care about actually living or doing anything.

There are many professional scholars that advocate a resource based economy because it is the most logical option for us as a species to survive and prosper, creating a nurturing environment in a steady state of sustainability...

A resource based economy will make all the worlds resources the common heritage of all the worlds people, without waste, polution and scarcity of resources...

How do we achieve it?

If anyone has any questions or wuld like to know more about a resource based economy, please watch the Zeitgeist Film series: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ and check out http://www.thevenusproject.com/ and http://www.thezeigeistmovement.com/ or join our facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/groups/304286712962641/

And finally, to the people here who have made rediculous comments about the Zeitgeist Movement and or a resource based economy, please do some research and stop spreading bullshit about something you know nothing about, TZM is trying to help the world and move us into a better place that irradicates the worlds problems, such as the 34,000 children that die everyday because of poverty and preventable disease, and the huge amount of other problems that are caused by your ignorance of how the world works...

I have watched them all before, refuse to waste my life watching them again. Not one of them answers the questions I've asked in this post or in this thread, which must be answered before the Zeitgeist movement's ideas can be considered possible, much less feasible.

The Zeitgeist's motives are admirable, there is no denying that, but their attempts to achieve their goals are frankly pathetic. Let me put it this way, if you saw someone talking to a child about how cool it would be to be able to see in the dark, would you expect:

A.) The child's eyes to spontaneously change through sheer force of will.
or
B.) The child to agree that it would be neat, wish there was a way to achieve it, and go on about their business. That child might eventually aid and/or take advantage of ongoing research that would make such a thing possible, but anything achieved is as a result of a deliberately planned process, and a lot of hard work, not merely the desire for it to occur.

If you want to change the world, DO something about it. Don't just strut around and talk about how intellectually superior your vision of the future is compared to the reality we both live in and must work with.

P.S. You still need to work on that attitude, I and many of the others here are quite familiar with the way the world works. If you begin with the assumption that anyone and everyone who opposes you is simply ignorant, then you have already lost.

Lilani:

David Close:
...caused by your ignorance of how the world works...

See, I was just about to congratulate you, Johnstamos and Casemon (because we all know it's just you two again but with different accounts ;-) ) for dropping the "you all are just too dumb for our awesome movement" attitude, which would have done wonders for your overall presentation and credibility. But it seems arrogance and the zeitgeist just go hand in hand.

You can have your Utopia. I'm not going to bother making any more long posts here, because no matter what you tell me, I would never want to join your movement because it would mean having to fraternize with a bunch of self-righteous blowhards who are only interested in putting themselves above the rest of the world. Really, even if your whole movement wasn't based on existential fluff and dust, you probably have the worst PR of any nonviolent movement that's ever existed. It's almost as though you don't want people to agree with you (which wouldn't surprise me, because if you got enough people you'd have to actually get up and do something). Incredible.

And boom goes the dynamite.

This post, Lilani, perfectly summarizes this "zeitgeist" movement. A bunch of fucking hipsters who think they're the smartest people on the planet for proposing a completely hypothetical fantasy world in which people don't act like people and magical resources (I nominate unicorn farts and minotaur piss) are manufactured out of thin air, and who act like everyone else is just too stupid to understand when people point out the obvious flaws in their "ideas." However, god forbid any of them put down the PBR and actually did something to improve the world other than spam condescending tripe on a fucking video game website.

Ok all the quote marks in the preview are question marks, I have know idea why this is happening, sorry I dont know how to change it, its going to make it really annoying to read!

Hi again, so I looked over the comments On the first page.
They are really good. I think its brilliant all the critical thinking that is going on, and that you all are all pretty much saying fuck no am I believing that shit until you say exactly what you mean and have evidence to back it up.
I have never made an account on this site before Sak Sak. I only ever came on here for news on releases, reviews and to watch zero punctuation, after he moved from youtube.
So I just want to start by saying I am not a ''member'' of any of these movements. I don't think it's a good Idea to be a member. I don't want there to be leaders, am not attached to idea of them in the movement or any of its ideals. I am simply researching into it, and have been for a while.
This describes my attitudes towards the idea well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clhPpHFSNAE

So it is people like all of you who I like to talk to the most. Other people who question it. It is actually rare, normally you get the people who are downright religious about it or the people who have never heard of it.

So the consensus seems to be that it is a crazy, stupid idea, born out of a good intention. I want to try and deal with everyone's comments.

Keep in mind im not advocating it, sorry if I come across like that. But it will only be if you come up with something I and nobody I know that's in the movement (I could post a message on the facebook page etc) can answer it either, that I would seek to either change the idea of it and call it something else, or drop the idea altogether and look for something better.
Because I refuse this is the best we can do.
1. johnstamos , I don't like your comments.
2. Lilani, It sounds like you haven't heard much about it before. I think it would be best to do extensive research despite what other people say. Of course there would be video games in RBE. How it would work is that people or a person would make there own game and release it for free. Just like the turn based RPG that was promoted my the pirate bay yesterday. You would get to play it, and you would get to give it to however you wanted, spread it far without fear of getting into debt.Also could consoles use the same online system?That would be cool.
3. keiskay, I would agree completely about religion. Its so stupid and it is one of the reasons I'm not a member of that movement. Not that I'm religious.
''actually a post scarcity economy'' yes I think that is fitting.
''...research that its fucking idiotic'' this is exactly what I need, tell me exactly what evidence and why it would fail.
''venus project is a movement that openly ask for donations'' - I understand this argument, but could the same not be said for a charity? Anyway nobody needs that particular organisation (they are a dual business/non-profit organisation). But I do think they believe in what they sell. Up to you to decide if you research it, but does it matter? In the end if some of the idea they come up with are good, well than lets take the ideas.
4. Katatori-kun, ''Nothing turns me off of a movement more than the notion that people who aren't in it need to be ''woken up'' so true. Its sicking.
5. Lilani ''produce EVERYTHING we need, without us EVER having to feed or maintain the machines themselves?'' I can't imagine that for a very long time. Self-repairing robotics is still in the early stages, and robots cannot make everything yet.
''always have to work to maintain a certain standard of living'' - that could be true. But that's fine in RBE, we need to work to survive.

6. crimson5pheonix ''Not as bad as the first movie, but still terrible.'' - why exactly, as its ideas, not as a piece of entertainment?
7. johnstamos ''it's confidence in the face of your ignorance'' what are you actually trying to do here, you push people away from your own movement, which is about logic!
8. Heronblade ''Every last one of us is aware that the current system is flawed. We aren't ''attached'' to it out of ignorance, but because nothing better is currently achievable.''I would question how you know that for certain.
9. Lilani -''machines (which somehow never require maintenance, expansion, management, or updating)'' im shure they will?
''everything we will ever want'' dear god no.
''where all that fuel and technology will come from''renewable energy. That's were we will be getting it in future anyway, no surprize there.
Not saying its gona be easy :
We need to cut down consumtion and get building!
http://www.ted.com/talks/david_mackay_a_reality_check_on_renewables.html

''if it all breaks down'' the idea is that people are self-sufficient and educated to be critical thinkers and know how to provide for themselves and others.
''Nothing in reality is perfect, and nothing in reality ever can be perfect. We are humans, we are inherently imperfect.'' I think the word itself perfection by definition can never be obtained, outside of opinion. So the movement has noting to do with this. It is gear towards being efficant.
10. Oh my god johnstamos you are just a stereotype liberal idealist. You need to put some wright on your words.
11. Heronblade - ''Scarcity is in and of itself not an illusion, resources are finite, both in terms of being able to physically access them, and in terms of there being only a set amount available'' very true. But we can use them more efficiently. There is no denying that. Also we could have a faster renewable resource rate with technology and medicine free of the binds of money and copy write laws.

''So let me ask you this, when talking about a system that can only work using tech only seen in science fiction, and that we have no evidence to suspect is actually physically possible on the scale we need, does skepticism imply a lack of hope, or realism?''
We are talking about working towards that, also we are fairly advanced, look at 3D printing, 6th sense tech, we can control magnets in a floating space and interact with them, fully automated car lines, self healing(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-healing_material).etc.
But what is it that is needed for RBE to work, do you think we could not build? More importantly, what do you think we need, to create abundance, and reduce labour considerably that we cannot build or have not built NOW?

12. keiskay not a lot of what you said is true.In RBE there would be no need for companys. They could exist but they would just be video game making groups. ''would have equal money''no there is no money? I think you need to do more research, not trying to come across as superior or anything. ''same the crap year after year'' but people would no longer have to appeal to specific audiences and could make whatever they want??!'' no new ideas''it has been proven that money is not linked with creativity (http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2010/05/does-more-money-motivate-higher-performance.html ) Also, there are two types of motivation. You are only thinking about one!
13. Lilani -''What about crime'' I imagine this would be transitional :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk5Z-Xqe6ww
I don't see how it would be any worse than what we have at the moment. All your basic criminal offenses would be the same I imagine. Moving forward though, maybe would could look at whey crime happens. Ie. The epigenetics etc., Like we are already doing, but just more emphasis on it I guess. There would be no point in stealing in RBE, being a drug dealer etc. All that stuff would phase out, I imagine.
''You will never, EVER get all of society to voluntarily submit to one single idea'' Do not think even over a long period of time? With enough momentum? I don't see why not. Apart from the few who are attached to this system, because it gives them everything. But they are in a minority. Even they, would benefit, I would suspect. Through parallel government, and a majority, there will be no need for violence, at all either.
''Even if the system is absolutely perfect in every way, people will want to ruin it just because'' Humans are not always one way or another scientifically speaking. Human nature changes.

''These people will have to be dealt with somehow'' no, if there is them people, and they simply cannot be convinced, then it will either never happen. Or they will live somewhere together separate(by their own choice) or they will attack and be killed in defense, or the RBE people will be. I think either of them Is what realistically happen, if it happens.
''branch of authority'' there is already many that are making you do things? If people do not work, that is their own choice. Why wouldn't they, if everyone is there family? If it keeps society going? Etc. I would love to volunteer for a system that benefits everyone. I mean people already volunteer in this everyone for themselves system!
''no guarantee that you will always have an adequate number of volunteers to fill all the positions''
I don't understand how you think this is going to happen lol! It would never happen if there wasent enough to begin with.
''In an ideal society based on giving people all they desire'' not what it is at all.
14.johnstamos your best comment.
''Your desire to have 1 person describe an entirely new society to you is utterly hilarious.'' So true. How could one person ever? Doesn't mean you cannot put it forward as an idea. You guys are acting like really defensive or something, its just a discussion on a possibility. If some random member cannot answer a question, then the whole thing doesn't work? That's crazy.

15. nikki191 - ''it needs testing to see if its feasible.''Yes.100% agree. Otherwise we could get a situation were loads of people die. I don't know how you would though experiment it.

16. aPod - ''And I am often called a conspiracy theorist.'' Well some were true, so whats the theory? In detail?
17. thaluikhain . ''So, to sum up, the zeitgeist is the belief that technology can solve all mankind's problems and everyone else is stupid?
Or if there's more to it than that, the OP might want to mention it.''
It's the belief that logic applied to life can solves some of mankind's problems.
18. Skeleon ''they set back Atheistic argumentation quite a bit with their badly researched info.'' It was one guy, and yes I know its so annoying, I'm not atheist myself, but why the fuck did he do that? There is so many logical books written about it, and all the good arguments, he didn't use any. It's stupid to link sun and son, just because they sound the same in English also.

19.Heronblade - ''where the functionally unlimited resources in question will actually come from''
well we currently have 0.5 freshwater useable. But I seen a device on a ted talk that is a home device, that is cheep and low energy usage. It quickly converts salt or polluted water into drinking water. This would mean abundance of water (access to all of it, for everyone, I will find it again if you want). We would also, have enough water if we did not eat meat. We would also, have WAY WAY to much food for everyone in the entire world if everyone was vegetarian or switched to a bug based diet. Ima just saying don't hate on me, I'm not an animal lover or big hippie or anything, its just logic.
http://www.flex.com/~jai/articles/101.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/lang///id/1018
Etc. things like that. Would be my guess. Better usage of land also
Hydroponics - (use high rise buildings with this) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroponics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJhgGbRA6Hk
20. LoFr3Eq ''doesn't factor in is very simple.
Humans are humans... with desires, fears, greed, impulses, passions, and vices''
is one of the main things they talk about. Take moving forward for example :
speakers:
Dr. Gabor Mate - physician
Dr Robert Sapolsky - professor of neurological sciences , standfort university
Richard Wilkinson - professor emertius of social epidemiology (university of nottingham)
Dr. James Gillgan.

1.montreal suicide study : http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/193/2/134.short

2.epigenetics, are a whole area of science in themselves.

3.dunedin study - http://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz/ ( http://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz/journals/role-of-genotype-in-the-cycle-of-violence-in-maltreated-children )

4.envoironmental enrichment http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cne.903270108/abstract;jsessionid=E83482DACFBF8EC69C32AE233BD21FED.d03t04" title="" target="_blank">http://www.pnas.org/content/102/48/17478.long , http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cne.903270108/abstract;jsessionid=E83482DACFBF8EC69C32AE233BD21FED.d03t04 etc.there is loads on animals on this.Thats the only human study that has been done as far as I know.

5.Dutch famine winter : http://ihome.ust.hk/~lbcaplan/dutchfamine.html loads of info out there about this too.
Etc.etc. what are you talking about?
''Not to mention there are probably too many people in the world for this to work everywhere.''It is thought that if everyone switched to a vegetarian diet that we would have food for 20 billion people.
''what are the incentives of this economy once we start living in it?'' all your average intrinsic ones and extrinsic ones? To live, to have good emotions, to create, to build, to innovate, to see the world, travel, help others, live your life, follow your passions etc etc. What would you do if you had any easy job for the rest of your life that gave you enough to live? You would do whatever it is you love of course!

"See, I was just about to congratulate you, Johnstamos and Casemon (because we all know it's just you two again but with different accounts ;-) ) for dropping the "you all are just too dumb for our awesome movement" attitude, which would have done wonders for your overall presentation and credibility. But it seems arrogance and the zeitgeist just go hand in hand"

I dont mean to be arrogant, i am just soo tired of going over the same things again and again, please dont judge the movement or what a resource based economy is based on my so called attitude, i am only one person and do not represent the movement as a whole...

"You can have your Utopia"

A resource based economy is not a utopia, which is an impossibility as there is no such thing as perfection, an RBE is simply our current technologic and scientific understandings applied to society in the best way possible with human need logically deciding what to do...

"I'm not going to bother making any more long posts here, because no matter what you tell me, I would never want to join your movement because it would mean having to fraternize with a bunch of self-righteous blowhards who are only interested in putting themselves above the rest of the world"

That is a rediculous statement, the zeitgeist movement is simply about awareness of a resource based economy which includes everyone and provides for everyone the same, we do not want to put ourselves above the rest of the world, we want all people to have access to everything they need, your personal opinion of a couple of people whether it be me or anononeone shouldn't affect your perspective of an entire movement and its goals and tennants, that is very narrowminded.

"Really, even if your whole movement wasn't based on existential fluff and dust, you probably have the worst PR of any nonviolent movement that's ever existed. It's almost as though you don't want people to agree with you (which wouldn't surprise me, because if you got enough people you'd have to actually get up and do something). Incredible"

I can assure you the movement isnt based on fluff and dust and if you took the time to research it, you would find that it is logical for human life to develop in the direction of a resource based economy, the reason why i get so frustrated with people writing comments like that, is because you are forming a pre concieved opinion without first looking at all the information with an open mind and judging it for yourself, i apologise for my frustration in my previous post.

I invite you to take a look at the TZM Mission Statement: http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/mission-statement

Here is a link to the Zeitgeist Film Series Gateway: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Anononeone:
17. thaluikhain . ''So, to sum up, the zeitgeist is the belief that technology can solve all mankind's problems and everyone else is stupid?
Or if there's more to it than that, the OP might want to mention it.''
It's the belief that logic applied to life can solves some of mankind's problems.

As opposed to what?

Surely more or less every movement ever is based on the idea that some/all of mankind's problems can be solved by applying better logic and reason to life?

By itself, that's not a cause, that's a facade of one.

David Close:
snip

cut that shit out

We have collectively asked over and over again, (sometimes politely, sometimes not so much) for less propaganda, more fact. We have made it clear, one way or another, that we require proof of an actual plan and/or means to achieve this goal, not just more talk about how great the goal is.

How do you respond? You repeat the same propaganda already posted before, as if expecting it to have any more effect the twelfth time around.

After that Family Guy episode, I can no longer take seriously anyone who uses the word "zeitgeist".

David Close:
I dont mean to be arrogant, i am just soo tired of going over the same things again and again, please dont judge the movement or what a resource based economy is based on my so called attitude, i am only one person and do not represent the movement as a whole...

The arrogance shit started at the very beginning, with your John Stamos account. We asked legitimate questions to clarify a few things, and your first response was to call us ignorant sheep dedicated to our "failing system." We proceeded to ask why the system was failing and why we should join, and you told us the same thing. This isn't about zeitgeist and you know it. If the zeitgeist really had any personal significance to you, you'd stop posting propaganda made by other people and post your own feelings and your own research on it.

If this is anything more than an ego trip for you, then you had best get started doing your own research on the legitimacy of zeitgeist. And don't go to biased sources written by people who are for the zeitgeist, look up the science behind their pie in the sky dreams and get more information objective sources. Once you've done that, you can try us again. Otherwise, we have nothing more to discuss. You're the one who wants this so badly, so do your own work and tell us why we should care.

Lilani:

David Close:
I dont mean to be arrogant, i am just soo tired of going over the same things again and again, please dont judge the movement or what a resource based economy is based on my so called attitude, i am only one person and do not represent the movement as a whole...

The arrogance shit started at the very beginning, with your John Stamos account. We asked legitimate questions to clarify a few things, and your first response was to call us ignorant sheep dedicated to our "failing system." We proceeded to ask why the system was failing and why we should join, and you told us the same thing. This isn't about zeitgeist and you know it. If the zeitgeist really had any personal significance to you, you'd stop posting propaganda made by other people and post your own feelings and your own research on it.

I don't know... I had a peek at their Wikipedia page and not only is it every bit as vague and incoherent as these guys are, it does it while being written very strongly from Zeitgeist sources as opposed to 3rd-party sources. The movement is very much starting to remind me of a cult (and the way they do their graphics very much reminds me of cult publishing I've seen- especially that aurora borealis photo whose caption offers no explanation of why it is there at all). I'm getting the impression that many people who are deep in this movement are completely unaware of what utter failures they are at making the case for their movement.

Anononeone:
5.Dutch famine winter : http://ihome.ust.hk/~lbcaplan/dutchfamine.html loads of info out there about this too.
Etc.etc. what are you talking about?
''Not to mention there are probably too many people in the world for this to work everywhere.''It is thought that if everyone switched to a vegetarian diet that we would have food for 20 billion people.
''what are the incentives of this economy once we start living in it?'' all your average intrinsic ones and extrinsic ones? To live, to have good emotions, to create, to build, to innovate, to see the world, travel, help others, live your life, follow your passions etc etc. What would you do if you had any easy job for the rest of your life that gave you enough to live? You would do whatever it is you love of course!

What are you on about in your broken unpunctuated English? The Hunger Winter was a result of the Germans seizing almost all food in the occupied Netherlands. What's the relevance?

Katatori-kun:
I don't know... I had a peek at their Wikipedia page and not only is it every bit as vague and incoherent as these guys are, it does it while being written very strongly from Zeitgeist sources as opposed to 3rd-party sources. The movement is very much starting to remind me of a cult (and the way they do their graphics very much reminds me of cult publishing I've seen- especially that aurora borealis photo whose caption offers no explanation of why it is there at all). I'm getting the impression that many people who are deep in this movement are completely unaware of what utter failures they are at making the case for their movement.

On a broader scale, I'm noticing a tendency in US politics to approach the parties as religions rather than broad coalitions looking to solve national problems. Republicans at this point are the easy example of adherence to dogma in stark contrast to reality, but a comparable sense of irrational expectations in 2008 around the election of Barack Obama is similarly concerning. You have the mainstay groups (Republicans and Democrats in the similar veins of Catholic, Protestants, Islam, and Buddhism) and the cults (The libertarian Party, Green Party, the Constitution Party, Zeitgeists, etc.). Facts and information are becoming dominated by political operators in the tradition of religious censors. Groups are springing up with the aim of purging those who do not adhere to the line, with the Tea Party being the current iteration of this and the 99%ers possibly becoming their counter group. And political discussion in the US has devolved to holy war where the other side is evil and to compromise with them is to compromise with evil.

It does not portend well for the future of the US.

The Gentleman:
On a broader scale, I'm noticing a tendency in US politics to approach the parties as religions rather than broad coalitions looking to solve national problems. Republicans at this point are the easy example of adherence to dogma in stark contrast to reality, but a comparable sense of irrational expectations in 2008 around the election of Barack Obama is similarly concerning.

I think this is something of a false equivalency, as much of the hullabaloo about Obama was fraudulently promoted by conservative pundits in order to discredit Obama's appeal. See Sean Hannity's smug, petulant dismissals of Obama as "the anointed one". This is a strategy employed to avoid acknowledging that Obama had legitimate appeal as a result of how disgusted voters (especially young voters) were with Bush administration politics, and instead discount everyone who voted for Obama as a deluded fanatic. Yes, expectations for Obama were unreasonable, but I see no reason to suggest that those expectations were influenced by a psuedo-religiosity when they are just as easily explained by his strong support among young voters who by definition have less experience getting their dreams crushed by the candidates they vote for. One can even see evidence for a dream-crushing strategy among some Republicans, by obstructing Obama's policies in Congress and then blaming Obama for failing to live up to the hopes laid upon him.

And this isn't just a partisan defense of Democrats. Part of the reason that I believe the religion metaphor works better for Republicans than Democrats is because Democrats have such a disjointed population. Whereas Republicans can declare someone to be a Republican in Name Only for any minor transgression against party dogma, Democrats have no party discipline and so can't establish a coherent dogma.

But I agree with the thrust of your post that we have a lot of religion-like behavior coming from officially non-religious sources in our country. I would even say it goes far beyond political parties.

Katatori-kun:

The Gentleman:
On a broader scale, I'm noticing a tendency in US politics to approach the parties as religions rather than broad coalitions looking to solve national problems. Republicans at this point are the easy example of adherence to dogma in stark contrast to reality, but a comparable sense of irrational expectations in 2008 around the election of Barack Obama is similarly concerning.

I think this is something of a false equivalency, as much of the hullabaloo about Obama was fraudulently promoted by conservative pundits in order to discredit Obama's appeal. See Sean Hannity's smug, petulant dismissals of Obama as "the anointed one". This is a strategy employed to avoid acknowledging that Obama had legitimate appeal as a result of how disgusted voters (especially young voters) were with Bush administration politics, and instead discount everyone who voted for Obama as a deluded fanatic. Yes, expectations for Obama were unreasonable, but I see no reason to suggest that those expectations were influenced by a psuedo-religiosity when they are just as easily explained by his strong support among young voters who by definition have less experience getting their dreams crushed by the candidates they vote for. One can even see evidence for a dream-crushing strategy among some Republicans, by obstructing Obama's policies in Congress and then blaming Obama for failing to live up to the hopes laid upon him.

I'll admit, I had to strain to find a Democratic comparative for reality-defining opinions and this was the best I could do.

Katatori-kun:
And this isn't just a partisan defense of Democrats. Part of the reason that I believe the religion metaphor works better for Republicans than Democrats is because Democrats have such a disjointed population. Whereas Republicans can declare someone to be a Republican in Name Only for any minor transgression against party dogma, Democrats have no party discipline and so can't establish a coherent dogma.

I wouldn't go that far. In comparative terms, Republicans are Catholics, Democrats are Protestants. One has a clear ideology and dogma (Republicans) and the other is disjointed, but centered around basic principles (Democrats). While Republican ideological discipline is clear and uniform, Democratic discipline tends to center around certain key issues such as social security and Medicare.

Katatori-kun:
But I agree with the thrust of your post that we have a lot of religion-like behavior coming from officially non-religious sources in our country. I would even say it goes far beyond political parties.

What other areas come to mind?

The Gentleman:
I wouldn't go that far. In comparative terms, Republicans are Catholics, Democrats are Protestants. One has a clear ideology and dogma (Republicans) and the other is disjointed, but centered around basic principles (Democrats).

A better analogy might be that Republicans are Southern Baptists. Southern Baptists do not have a single official leader (unlike Catholics). This is like Republicans, who do not have a single official leader. However, there is a strong social pressure among Southern Baptist churches to keep the theology of each church within a certain range of teachings, and this is analogous to how Republicans enforce party discipline through shaming Republicans who are overly moderate. Both Republicans and Southern Baptists are powerful organizations because of their coherent ideology, but despite their internal independence are not as flexible as other organizations might be.

If there's a religious parallel for Democrats, I would suggest something like Unitarian Universalists.

Katatori-kun:
But I agree with the thrust of your post that we have a lot of religion-like behavior coming from officially non-religious sources in our country. I would even say it goes far beyond political parties.

What other areas come to mind?

The American conceptualization of capitalism is very much like a religion. It is often even conceptualized to offer judgments on quality and morality through the all-mighty "invisible hand of the free market".

"The arrogance shit started at the very beginning, with your John Stamos account"

I only have one account here, that is not my account, so it is not my arrogance, i was refering to my first post about spreading bull*, which i got a warning for...

"We asked legitimate questions to clarify a few things, and your first response was to call us ignorant sheep dedicated to our "failing system" We proceeded to ask why the system was failing and why we should join, and you told us the same thing"

like i said that is not me, but i will respond, i used to think that the world was ok, that governments behaved the way they do because they had too, i had no idea about the banking system or corruption or false flag attacks, that our capitalist system is unsustainable or that there was anything better than what we have, until i wathed Zeitgeist: The Movie and Zeitgeist Addendum, which opened my eyes to all the bad things in the world, not long before Zeitgeist Addendum i started researching the contents of the first film and found it all to be true, i then researched the second film and found the same and then Zeitgeist Moving Forward came out which literally spoke for itself, as most of the contents was from interviewee's with doctorates describing human behaviour and a part aout human pathology which shows what i will describe as the natural evolutionary progession into a Resource Based Economy...

This isn't about zeitgeist and you know it. If the zeitgeist really had any personal significance to you, you'd stop posting propaganda made by other people and post your own feelings and your own research on it.

The reason why i havent posted my own research is because i think it is the responsibility of everyone to find the truth, to research the evidence, it doesnt matter what i post here really if you you are not willing varify it for yourself, as i could quite easily be making it up, and if you are willing to research it yourself, then you might aswell go directly to the source and watch the films and investigate that, most of the info in the films is self evident, but still worth personally investigating, like i did...

"If this is anything more than an ego trip for you, then you had best get started doing your own research on the legitimacy of zeitgeist. And don't go to biased sources written by people who are for the zeitgeist"

I presume you mean the legitimacy of a Resource Based Economy (RBE)? for The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM) is just to make people aware of an RBE if so i would like to approach this from an emnployment and human labour perspective...

We are slowly heading towards an RBE type society already and will probably end up with something very similar to it, employment numbers are constantly diminsihing, this is caused by technological unemployment, which is the replacement of human labor by machines, such as the agriculture and the manufacturing industry which are almost completely mechanised, most employment moved from these areas to the service industry which, as you may have noticed by self service tills and petrol stations, are heading in the same direction, the reason for this happening is because it is cheeper, more efficient and there is less risk involved in getting a machine to do the work of a human being, machines dont take holidays, they dont need breaks or insurance and they dont need to be paid, this makes capitalism self defeating and if it continues on this path of cost reduction to maximise profits, it will inevitably cease to work, as unemployment rises, purchasing power dwindles which removes the demand for products, which stops the supply of products, so what are we to do? stop the development of technology, just to keep people employed? or do we develop a new system that harnesses technology to its maximum potential, minimising human labour to eventually nothing more than a supervisory role? which also removes the need and usage of money, for if no one has purchasing power any more and production is being halted because of it, in order to continue the development of society, the hinderance of a monetary system needs to be removed...

"look up the science behind their pie in the sky dreams and get more information objective sources. Once you've done that, you can try us again. Otherwise, we have nothing more to discuss"

There is nothing pie in the sky about it, it just sounds odd to you, just as it did to me when i first heard the idea, but its just like before the first plane was build, everyone said it was crazy and that man couldnt fly, or when the first claim that the world was round, everyone said it was insanity...

I have researched the basic principle of an RBE and they are really quite simple and are doable with todays technology and definately within our current scientific knowledge, there is nothing new involved apart from the social and economic side to it, everything about an RBE is technically possible right now...

"You're the one who wants this so badly, so do your own work and tell us why we should care"

The current train of thought that people have, which is not a part of human nature or some inherent flaw in our genes, is developed and learned from childhood, we are only competitive, hostile and territorial in an environment of scarcity, we have developed enough technologically and scientiically that we can quite easily move past it, but we are stuck in a system held back by money and the greed of a few men at the top of a very fraudulent pyramid scheme, these rediculous flaws in our society and forced apon us and we grow up believing that it is supposed to be this way, we are indoctrinated to believe we are nothing more than animals having to fight against each other in a primitive fashion, but it is not true and has been proved by professors of psychology and behavioural development that we are products of environment, and that in our current environment we inevitably behave the way we do, change the environment to a post scarccity society that provides everything needed to everyone on the planet, sharing technology and resources for the good of all people and we will develop into a truely civilised people...

The reasons why you should care are:

* You are a debt slave; you have to work hard for your entire life to pay back a debt on money that they created out of nothing...

* Most jobs that are currently done are completely unnecessary and pointless, when considering that technology could replace most human labor...

* 90% of crime is due to lack of money in a scarce system, so most crime would be irradicated...

* 34,000 Children die everyday from poverty, starvation and preventable diseases, this is caused by capitalist bankers stripping the wealth from third world countries through unpayable debt...

* Alot more can be achieved by working together than by competing, 2 car companies for example could make a better car in less time if they worked together, pooling their idea's...

* The people at the top of the pyramid are getting worried about the freedom of information sharing and the intellectual understanding of the average person, and are slowly moving us towards an unelected one world facist police state government...

* Renewable energy technology is being held back by big oil companies because there is no profit in energy that can be produced infinitely in abundance, and with our oil stocks constantly running lower, we need to be developing that technology and preparing to replace oil as the backbone of our energy reliant infrastructure...

* Capitalism is based on infinite GDP growth, livingg in a closed ecosphere with finite resources makes this a very irresponsible thing to do...

* Capitalism growth creates massive amounts of wasted resources, because companies produce goods that will break down quickly in order to create what is called cyclical consumption, basically goods break down fast so that consumers replace them, keeping the profits coming in and wasting the resources in the broken down product...

* 100% efficiency can be achieved in a RBE, by making production more effiecient, products last as long as they possibly can with interchangeable parts, with recyling waste from production and outdated parts imediately, streamlinging the whole process into one cycle...

There are many other reasons to care, as a fellow empathic human being i ask you and everyone else here to please consider joining us and help move us, as a species, towards something better for all humanity, especially those in unnecessarily dire situations!

1....OneCatch ->'' Perhaps you could explain exactly how the Zeitgeist movement is going to eliminate shortages?'' good point. Anyone who says they can eliminate shortages, is lying because there is no way they would know they could. This is because no global survey of the earth's resources has been conducted (as far as I know). But intelligent management of what we have is what we advocate, rather than continual mindless consumption. I also realise this is also to do with the cultural problem of consumerism. I think this is however perpetuated by the advertising industry.
2.....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'' that sounds horrible. However, I would ask you to look beyond whoever is in the movement and the movement itself and just look at the raw ideas presented, and see what you make of them.

3......Casemon > '' 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).'' So the movement is trying to take advantage of the fact that we know this now.
3.....Tyler Perry > '' kindly go drink your juice.'' I FUCKING LOVE JUICE
4.....Comando96> '' but all the resources from thousands of years ago'' how do you know exactly how much resources it would take to work?
'' The problem is obviously implementation, and a fuller understanding of human psychology and the brain... which we really do not have'' could you explain exactly what you mean by this. Take it from a standpoint that we will work towards the most possible sustainability in the world and in consciousness over as many generations as it takes, please. Explain why it would not be possible.
5......LoFr3Eq > '' 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.'' 1.no forced measures will be taken. If it will not happen without them, then it will never happen at all.
2. All these things are only (if even) predeterminations. They would not be suppressed. They would not be expressed to begin with , in the right environment. Also community's like eco villages that exist today, are founded and function on people as they are TODAY. These villages are very similar to RBE and would be part of the transition, this will only ever happen over many generations. Also, explain why the whole movement would fall apart if we had some of these emotions in some people? Also why could they not be changed, through education?
'' organic food can only feed 4 billion people'' check out this site (im just talking about food, I don't really have a stance on organic or not at this point) ; http://www.flex.com/~jai/articles/101.html" title="" target="_blank"> http://www.flex.com/~jai/articles/101.html
6.....thaluikhain > '' only so much we can hope for'' why not start acting instead of hoping?
7......Lilani > '' Geothermic energy will not last forever because volcanoes blow up'' Shure, renewable energy. It will be extremely difficult to become totally green globally. It is technically possible as seen in the prior TED talk I posted. But we will have to rely on nuclear and fossil for a time yet. While improving renewable energy and building around the world. We will also hope for better renewable energy to come, as technology is always improving. The biggest thing though is to cut back on energy CONSUMTION after this, things will not be as technically difficult. I don't know how you can see consumption slowing down in the monetary system? It also inhibits the renewable tech from becoming better faster, as it is supressed by oil company's etc.
'' How do you deal with crime without brainwashing and altering what is fundamental to being a human?'' If the environment is altered, does that count as Me altering? Does the zeitgeist being altered over generations count as me altering? Is the current education system not SETTING what is fundamental to being a human? Is changing non-violently and non-forcefully over generations the way humans are wrong? Is it wrong to leave it as it is? If you follow that logic, any change to education would be wrong, because it would be altering humans. Also, even if we don't get rid of all crime and have prisons like the ones in the prior video I posted, that's fine. Its still better than this system.
'' How can you be certain you will always have enough volunteers to keep things going? You can't have something perfect run on assumptions such as "well there will always be enough people wanting to do the job.'' It would never happen if we did not have enough to begin with. Also, if people stop working, we get people striking because its unfair, then everyone's hungry. Then everyone starts working again. Its not forced labour, they are just working to live. I don't see anything wrong with that, Shure its like that right now.
'' How do we deal with possible dealings with aliens in the future if we have no chosen person to represent us? Again, a utopia that is supposed to last forever should always have a plan for these things.'' WTF. We post messages on reedit, the one with the most thumbs up gets sent to them. Also direct democracies can democratically choose representatives for situations. Also its not a utopia.
8.......Heronblade > '' because we have a tendency to screw major changes'' spoken like wise beard man himself. This is why we need to do this slowly. I will give a sample outline in a below post.
9......Blablahb > '' What are you on about in your broken unpunctuated English? The Hunger Winter was a result of the Germans seizing almost all food in the occupied Netherlands. What's the relevance?''
Sorry, somebody (I forget who) was saying that human nature is a reason why this cannot happen. Sorry I should have been more clear. I said that this person is wrong in that they said that the movement failed to factor this in. I referred to the third film and listed the experts that talked about it, referred to what they talked about and then gave links to articles and scientific journals, were the info came from. They speak of epigenetics and how the ''genes = limits of the human '' is a false claim. They also talk about how ''humans are free from biology'' is also a false claim. Then they show how gene expression work. They then talk about how only a handful of genes are truly predeterminations (things like down syndrome etc.). That the rest, including a gene coding for violent behaviour : are triggered by environmental factors.
10......thaluikhain : > ''more or less every movement ever is based on the idea that some/all of mankind's problems can be solved by applying better logic'' religion isn't. Also traditionalism isn't. There are problems in the monetary system that continue to this day. They have been there from the start. We might have the means to get rid of them now. Is it not more logical to stand back. See if its possible to do better. Rather than to just hope things get better, as you said in a previous post? That's all I'm advocating, discussion about the possibility, I don't claim to know.

I can only speak for my own country, But here is some ideas: (keep in mind they are only ideas, I am not a member. I am just considering how it could possibly go. My ideas could be completely flawed and utterly fail. Which is why I like to discuss)
Stages of transition.
>>>>>>>>>1.Spread of information.<<<<<<<<<
This Stage Is where we spread the idea of what is important to human needs in our local communities. The ideologies would be presented in leaflets, DVD's, and by interacting with people. Local discussions would be held and hopefully gain support. This would be a global grass roots activist campaign. Social media would play an essential role, in connecting the local groups across the world.
The core element of the talks would be to ask the question of ''is there problems in our community?'' and looking at the root causes of these problems. Members would attempt to explain in a clear manner that the monetary system creates artificial scarcity and all sorts of negative environmental consequences and human behaviour.
>>>>>>2. Community projects<<<<<<<
Projects that could be created would be a ''land project ''. The idea here is to get permission through referendum or other means to reclaim ownership of land for growing. Encourage growing in one's own land as well. Funds would be raised to by the first set of seeds.
"Energy projects" could be made. Communities could create their own solar panels and start to produce sugar cane for fuel or other biofuels. Pressure can be placed on MP's to fund the building of wind turbines.
''Creation projects'' community's could try and become less dependent on company products. This is a key project. A community workshop would be founded. It would be the central community location for creation projects. This sites idea would be heavy used http://opensourceecology.org/
The main ideas are to start in a small, step by step way to create new communities. These would be eco communities. Their aim is to become self-sufficient. This is to happen across country. The aim would be for this to happen in many areas across the world at once. We would try to keep exports cheep from the city's and continue to import things of use, from non- eco community's. This is so as not to unset global economy. However the idea is that areas become less reliant on foreign imports and become more self-sufficient. This would reduce transportation around the world.
Here is an example in my country: http://www.thevillage.ie/
>>>>>>>>Stage 2 : political influence.<<<<<<<<<
The community's in my country can collaborate and plan reforms and referendums for legislation.
We would try and bring in laws that are beneficial for everyone and the planet as a whole an example would be the legalisation of cannabis. This would mean better paper(at faster rates, that don't hurt the lungs of the world), better houses and a great new source of food.
Other legislation would be better squatters rights. This would get homeless people off the street and put all the ghost towns to good use.
The Icelandic example would be followed, in relation to debt, and financial reforms.
Also reforms would work towards gaining direct democracy for the country. From here the nations people have more power. A move towards total direct democracy and representative democracy, out the window. However, a secure system would need to be made to for voting. I do not think it a good idea to have all votes held online, without backup. Votes should be held online, yes, but not without procedure. For every decision (which could be presented on the voting website and gain popularity fast ) a vote must be made. So people should vote on it. It would nearly be like up voting something on reddit.com or likening or disliking something on YouTube. This could easily be hacked though right? So we would also need to count each voting community's votes and publish them online. Here the community could see their final votes and then make Shure with real votes that the two correlate. Then they would ring a central voting tally group. Just like the voting counters today. They would say if the votes were the same as there real life votes or if something was wrong. This would all be written down in real life too.
Basically, we are using computers to speed up democratic process. By dividing regions into voting regions. Then counting them as a single percentage. These percentages are like single votes. Then they are all counted together and the results published online. The process would have to be more complex than this to make Shure no fraud is conducted. Noting digital is to be trusted without real life confirmation.
I personally think a new voting system should be brought in. Before one can vote, they must complete a test about what they are voting on. The test would ask questions about the subject. It would be conducted and corrected be an independent party. Paid for by people's taxes. If you fail, then you should have to go and study more about it and then re-sit it or you cannot vote.
>>>>>>>3.Transition.<<<<<<<<<<<<
A)This stage would take a long time to get too. It might be necessary that every country is part of the movement at this point.
If So then, a stage in between this one and the last would be necessary. This ''in between stage'' would be a diplomatic stage. It would be an attempt to convince the people of other nations and there governments to adopt the movement. If this fails then, Maybe we could persuade them to adopt parts of the movements. Social media could spread, what it is like living her to other countries. Also leaders could be invited over and other diplomatic projects conducted.
If all else fails then it would be necessary to create a truce between the two forces. One group would be the former monetary establishment. The other would be the new resource establishment.
If this fails and the other nation threatens war, I can't really speak about what would happen. I don't know what would happen. I don't know what the right thing to do would be. However I can see the people of these other nations seeing that we are not endangering them. They would understand how our movement works. Unless they are kept in the dark (like in north Korea). Rebellions would happen in other country's to set up other community's. OR the new resource communities could be invaded and put back into the monetary system.
However I can only imagine this happening as a result of pulling out of the monetary system itself, this can be avoided by staying in it, longer and spreading the ideas proposed WITHIN the monetary system. Spreading it to the nations that disagree with the stopping of the use of money. Hopefully the opposing nations would also become so self sufficient that it wouldn't be a problem any longer. Because even if they wanted to stay using the monetary system, then they would not need much foreign imports (the reason they would go to war). Also if they wanted to stay in the monetary system, we could trade resources with them.

B)Anyway the next stage would be to connect the community's. First nationally, then from county to country. Representatives would be needed at this point to discuss how the movement will continue from here. These representatives would need to meet together, from different countries. They would meet in huge conferences. It is important to note that the representatives would be bound to represent the democratic wishes of their nations. The focus would be on improving diplomatic relations between counties. To decide what is best for the planet. Basically we want to work out ways that improve everyone's lives and reduce suffering.
This is where the science applied to life comes into practice. We would seek to get rid of currency and increase efficiency. But only within want. This is why it is important that the culture of consumerism is changed at this point (from living in the resource community's). What I mean by this could be summarized by the following example: It is efficient for everyone to eat a potato based diet, because they are the food that produces the highest carb per km squared. But not everyone wants to eat a potato based diet.
What is possible can only ever be determined once we survey. We need to survey resources. If conducted on a local level and then totalled, this wouldn't be such a huge feat. Along with this, we need to calculate the renewable cycle of a resource. Then we will have statistics for dynamic equilibrium.
This is the crux of the movement, and will completely decide its fate. What is possible and what is not possible should become an apart reality for the human species at his point. I cannot really speak for what will happen. I don't think anyone can.
It is logical that this is done. It is logical to set up self-sufficient community's that do not use up all their basic resources. Were we go from here depends on the resources. Like I said, I heard that switching to more veg based diet, could increase food. Dissolving country's monetary debts would also be helpful in freeing them. This would irradiate the strain of paying it off, meaning they could eat their own food, instead of having to ship it away. Corrupt company's like Monsanto would have no market, and would phase out. The east would be able to create there own food and eat it, instead of shipping away. However there is only 40% agricultural land on the planet. We don't want to increase this, because we need the forests.

The whole idea is that we have a basic prediction of where we are, and were we are going. If we discover that in year X we will no longer have enough resources available for the people, then we need to work to prevent this. Now I don't advocate that we bring in law that makes birth control mandatory or anything. But we need to do something, and we need to all agree on what to do. We will only be in a position to do this, when we stop consuming and see what we need, on a basic level to live happily.

Anononeone:
10......thaluikhain : > ''more or less every movement ever is based on the idea that some/all of mankind's problems can be solved by applying better logic'' religion isn't. Also traditionalism isn't.

Oh, you might condemn the premises of tradionalists and so on, but they believe there'd be a better world if people agreed with them, and they'd have arguments to back them up.

Anononeone:
6.....thaluikhain > '' only so much we can hope for'' why not start acting instead of hoping?

Is it not more logical to stand back. See if its possible to do better. Rather than to just hope things get better, as you said in a previous post? That's all I'm advocating, discussion about the possibility, I don't claim to know.

You seem to be equating the zeitgeist movement with rationality and progress, as if it has the monopoly on trying to identify and solve problems. That's totally wrong, of course, and exactly the sort of attitude which will ensure nobody wants to be interested in whatever you have to say.

Anononeone:

>>>>>>2. Community projects<<<<<<<
Projects that could be created would be a ''land project ''. The idea here is to get permission through referendum or other means to reclaim ownership of land for growing. Encourage growing in one's own land as well. Funds would be raised to by the first set of seeds.

What kind of scale are we talking about here? Growing food in any decent quantities is extremely hard if you do not know what you are doing. Growing a few food plants in your backyard is a nice hobby but it is not going to feed anyone.

captcha: pipe dream
Even the forum software seems to agree

David Close:
The reasons why you should care are:

This is going to be good.

* You are a debt slave; you have to work hard for your entire life to pay back a debt on money that they created out of nothing...

And we're out the gate with arrogance and presumptuousness. My that didn't take long. Tell me, what do you know about me exactly? Because if you are so convinced I personally am some "debt slave," you must be operating on some knowledge about my personal financial and employment situation. Unless, of course, this is just a blanket label you apply to everybody who isn't in favor of the zeitgeist. That couldn't possibly be the case, could it?

* Most jobs that are currently done are completely unnecessary and pointless, when considering that technology could replace most human labor...

Except people like jobs, money, and the ability to do as they please.

* 90% of crime is due to lack of money in a scarce system, so most crime would be irradicated...

Citation needed. Oh, and what would we do with the rest of crime? As I said before, that still leave some criminals who are in it to screw everything up for the lulz. Who deals with them? What is done with them? How do you make sure there are enough people willing to volunteer for the job? A perfect plan requires no room for error. Even if there's the slightest chance of there not being enough volunteers, the plan won't work because it won't be perfect, and the zeitgeist relies upon perfection. The only way you can make sure there are enough volunteers is nothing short of brainwashing.

* 34,000 Children die everyday from poverty, starvation and preventable diseases, this is caused by capitalist bankers stripping the wealth from third world countries through unpayable debt...

If you think capitalism and banking are what's wrong with third world countries, then you really have no idea what you're talking about. They don't even have capitalism. They have governments who use all their resources and tax money to wage wars and oppress their people. They don't have a problem with capitalism, they have a problem with corruption and a lack of any sort of stable government system that has any concern for their welfare. Their issues are caused by dictators, not bankers. Capitalism can only exist where there is a market, and there is no market in third world countries.

* Alot more can be achieved by working together than by competing, 2 car companies for example could make a better car in less time if they worked together, pooling their idea's...

Given they want to work together in the first place. You can't just lump everybody into megagroups, then you'll have way too many people working on not enough projects.

* The people at the top of the pyramid are getting worried about the freedom of information sharing and the intellectual understanding of the average person, and are slowly moving us towards an unelected one world facist police state government...

Lol what? The very fact that we got SOPA and PIPA and ACTA to back off shows that you are wrong. They aren't a bunch of fascists trying to make a police state. They're a bunch of old people who are scared of change and lash out at things they don't understand. But their fears are unfounded, and in the last couple of years in dealing with this legislation we have made them face that fact.

* Renewable energy technology is being held back by big oil companies because there is no profit in energy that can be produced infinitely in abundance, and with our oil stocks constantly running lower, we need to be developing that technology and preparing to replace oil as the backbone of our energy reliant infrastructure...

I'll agree with you on that, big oil likes to get its hand on patents and sit on them, but I wouldn't argue there is no profit in renewable energy. The only reason we haven't found a profit in it so far is because the technology is inferior right now. But things are always improving, and they know for a fact oil will not last forever. And, if only for the sake of making sure they don't totally go under, they will have to submit to alternative energy or lose all their money. And you've said yourself how dedicated they are to money.

* Capitalism is based on infinite GDP growth, livingg in a closed ecosphere with finite resources makes this a very irresponsible thing to do...

Yeah, there are finite resources, and unless the zeitgeist thinks it can change the law of conservation of mass, no economic system is ever going to change how many atoms are on this planet. Everything is finite. Nothing is infinite, and nothing we can ever obtain or create will ever be infinite.

* Capitalism growth creates massive amounts of wasted resources, because companies produce goods that will break down quickly in order to create what is called cyclical consumption, basically goods break down fast so that consumers replace them, keeping the profits coming in and wasting the resources in the broken down product...

Waste is a part of life with every organism (unless you don't poop). So why wouldn't it be a part of the way we consume resources? And of course things break down, nothing is perfect. And, again, nothing we create will ever be perfect.

And if you think it can be perfect, then again I refer you to my outer space analogies. Let's say we create the ultimate utopia, which keeps humanity floating along forever. Statistically, there will most likely be a point where we must deal with other creatures in the universe. Communicate and possibly trade and deal with diplomatically. Even if the chance of that happening is one in five-hundred trillion, a perfect plan would take that into account. Who is supposed to take care of that? Who will be the diplomat to aliens? Well logically we'd have to elect somebody, which would require candidates and voting and so on. And what if they attack us, whether it be for strategy or for the lulz? What then?

The perfect plan needs to have every detail worked out. So get moving.

* 100% efficiency can be achieved in a RBE, by making production more effiecient, products last as long as they possibly can with interchangeable parts, with recyling waste from production and outdated parts imediately, streamlinging the whole process into one cycle...

Citation needed. And nothing can be recycled forever. Things wear down. And what happens with food waste, and poop? Surely you don't expect people to eat government-sanctioned food that has zero waste. Because THAT would be a fascist state, right there--telling people what to do and eat "for the good of everyone."

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked