The zeitgeist movement

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6
 

Petar Posavec:
So... would you care to explain exactly how sharing certain things (that would actually be beneficial to individuals and the world at large) is going to destroy individuality?

Surely if everything is shared equally, human nature will take over and there will eventually not be a fair share of wealth.

Remember that all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

LoFr3Eq:

Petar Posavec:
So... would you care to explain exactly how sharing certain things (that would actually be beneficial to individuals and the world at large) is going to destroy individuality?

Surely if everything is shared equally, human nature will take over and there will eventually not be a fair share of wealth.

Remember that all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

What do you mean when you say 'human nature'?
If you are referring to the notion of 'greed' I would have to disagree due to several reasons:
An infant has no knowledge of 'greed', 'selfishness' or 'competition'.
We are byproducts of our environments.
Scarcity/environment in itself generates negative attitudes - look around you. We live in a world which is maintaining the illusion of scarcity (or artificially induced scarcity) for the purpose of the current socio-economic system to work (promotion of competition vs cooperation, etc.) whereas we had the technological capability for decades to create abundance.
Children in western societies are exposed very early on to the concept of 'greed', 'selfishness' and 'competition'.
Mostly indirectly at first, but it quickly adds up to direct influence.
TV shows they watch, the parents they have, peers, the kind of home they grow up in, how other people behave towards them - all of those factors influences a child.

There is such a thing known as emotional memory - essentially external stimulus making an imprint on the body (but not in a conscious manner - this happens during fetus development in the womb as well- changes in mother's diet for example can create a difference that the fetus will feel and therefore will adjust to it - this in turn can affect ones mental development as well, and at another stage of life it can and does occur is post birth - before conscious memories begin to form).

To that effect, even today, humans who happen to have the purchasing power (money) to get numerous things, they don't (myself included).
If we are greedy by nature, wouldn't we 'indulge' ourselves regardless?
For that matter, wouldn't everyone want Ferrari's, yachts, villas and beach houses?
Plain and simple: NO (I certainly don't - along with many others).
Human wants are generated by the culture we grow up in - greed is only fostered by the present system we live in to levels which we witness.

When you have an economy based on access (which is what RBE is), then whats the point of 'owning' things like cars, yachts and beach houses when you can use them on-demand?
People often forget that money gets them access to the purpose of something they 'buy' - so they can actually USE it when they want to - same would be in RBE (on-demand access to goods at services without the use of money in any shape or form).

People would still of course have certain things for themselves on a full-time basis in RBE (things that are in frequent use such as for example computers, smartphones, appliances, etc.), but cars, yachts, villas, etc. - lol... what's the point?
You can only use one at a time anyway and for a specific portion of the time (a car spends roughly 80% of its lifespan parked). So, why not simply use it when needed (on-demand) and then leave it for someone else to use? Basically, cars would be designed with the best possible hardware we have at our disposal with highest possible efficiency and self-driving systems (which are already in existence).

That's the concept behind RBE - intelligent/efficient use of resources.
It's also accompanied by a different level of thinking.
As I said earlier, you cannot transplant people from the current system into RBE, or else you'd end up with exactly the same problems.
People need to be educated on how the economy works if they expect to be able to function in it (much like people needed to be educated how to behave in a monetary based economy).

But to sum it up (I do think I could have made the post shorter)...
If human behavior couldn't be changed, we would still be living in caves.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18404_6-shockingly-evil-things-babies-are-capable-of.html
Sure, its not the most reliable source in the world, but it has still got to be in the top three in this thread so far. I just threw it in there as my way of saying 'you really think the nature vs nuture debate has been solved? Jesus H Christ, if you could prove that you could fund your fairy tale land off the proceeds of the book alone.'

Why do I like to have, for example my own car-
a1well because there are dickheads out there who cannot be trusted to take care of a car, people who would, for example, get drunk and shit in the drivers seat.

a2Do you know why 90% of people walk from place to place in a city, because traffic is a nightmare and it is more conveniant to simply use the old footpath beaters. Once you have totally freely available cars that will park themselves, well everyone is going to use that because it is more convenient. What this leads to is either a shortage as many many pedestrians take to the streets at the same time or you have to have enough cars to supply every pedestrian at all times, creating the most ungodly traffic jams imaginable as well as a storage nightmare for all of hte vehicles.

a3 the maintainence work for this fleet of vehicles would be ungodly, as currantly maintenence of private vehicles tends to be the responsibility of the owner, once you shift that responsibilty over to the state, well, imagine the state of public transport vehicles literally multiplied by many tens of thousands.

a4 personal ensurances in that so long as I care for my vehicle, it will be ready for me to use, this feeds into the sense of agency that comes with personal property, that my fate is in my own hands.

There are so many things wrong with your perception of how people act that I am forced to question if you have ever actually encountered any. You think that I would simply open my doors and live with whoever wished to live with me when there is going to abberant behaviour in any society that allows free speech. It is a simple enough idea to get your head around, freedom of thought will lead to disagreements, which will lead to people making the 'wrong' choice. Any society that has everybody agreeing on anything is almost totalitarian. That is without even going into the issue of people with anti-social personality disorders, sadists, egotists etc etc.

You say that you will educate people to not be like that, well produce a training management plan then, shut all of us up by actually putting forward this education. I mean if it can convince the Pakistanis and Indians to stop fighting, if it can convince the Israelis and Pakistanis to sit down and sing kumbaya, if it can convince the mob to become alturistic, if it can convince Putin to step down and give power to the people, if it can convince drug dealers to give up the power they hold in their communities, if it can convince the taliban to allow freedom of religion, if it can convince the US to abandon capitalism and China to abondon human rights abuses, if it can get despairing aborigonal settlements back on their feet, if it can convince microsoft to abandon its pattents, if it can convince every homeowner on the fucking planet to give up their property, if it can convince the CIA to release all of its secrets, if it can convince the inmates of Coalinga hospital to mend their ways, if it can convince all of humanity to abandon their pride in their nations, if it can integrate the falklanders and the argentines, if it can make friends of the serbs, bosnians, croats and all the rest, if it can doo all of this...

Surely it can fucking convince one little forum to join your cause
if, however, you do not have an actually educational plan that can do all of this, shut up about being able to educate the horribleness out of humanity in general. Seriously, in your next post, throw it down in front of me and say 'this, this will convince every fucking person on the planet to cooperate in exactly the manner that I want them to' and if you can't do that, you clearly do not have the ability to weed out hate and greed and evil.

If you can't that's fine, just go back to your committies and working groups and up twinkles each other until you actually have a plan for this shit and then, and only then will people stop calling you on the arrogance that you have effortlessly solved the problems that have plagued humanity since, yes, since we were in caves.

First off... babies are highly susceptible to imprints from emotional memory.
To that end, they don't really do any of those 6 'evil' things out of thin air (and I must laugh at the absurdity and assumptions of that article).
They are exposed to a wide range of stimulus from the moment of their birth (and even inside the womb) that essentially provoke different reactions out of each individual.

I watched 2 of my sisters children grow up since being born and they never really did any 'evil' things without there being some kind of external stimulation that affected them which prompted the same or similar (or any kind of) reaction later on.

As for the analogy of owning a car... you are assuming that humans are generally irresponsible morons who are incapable of governing themselves or caring for material goods they happen to use.
In a current socio-economic system, this kind of behavior is stimulated.
For the love of man, people like to have politicians (woefully unqualified people) to make decisions FOR THEM (who in turn are NOT problem solvers and have 0 idea on how to actually FIX current problems) - so what exactly did you expect to happen?
Since our problems are technical in nature and not political, politicians as such are moronically outdated.

In today's world, majority of people aren't really given the option or the stimulation to govern themselves (exceptions excluded of course - but in general these kinds of 'exceptional' kids do tend to grow up as more conscious of their surroundings and are disillusioned - and surprisingly capable of governing themselves).

As for drunks... proximity sensors are a VERY old technology. We had the ability to install these little devices in cars since the early 20th century and prevent automobile accidents.
Why the heck do cars only have bumpers on the front and rear mostly? Why not on the sides?

Today, you can have self-driving cars on top of that.
In RBE, it wouldn't be necessary for people to actually DRIVE cars and they would be accident-proof (but where the heck is the profit today in doing that? Car manufacturers don't want you to actually die of course, but they do have a vested interest in you maintaining the vehicle on a regular basis by spending money).
If there's a human in your path, the car would essentially come to a dead stop and wouldn't allow you to go forward.
Technology based on magnets that repel each other is a VERY old concept and could have been applied with proximity sensors, so that car crashes would be avoided completely (the two vehicles would never even collide, they would essentially magnetically repel each other before a physical contact is made).

As for educating the masses, people are already doing that (myself included - both online and in real life).
Peter Jospeh and other individuals are doing lectures in various parts of the world (in case you didn't know - and a great deal of people is responding positively to the said lectures).
As for you... if you expect for change to occur, you can't just sit on your rear end and expect it to magically fall in your lap.
If you don't actively work towards it, chances are it probably won't happen.

Even if a person is unsuccessful at 'convincing' a single forum, so what?
There are other people out there who are surprisingly open to the notions of RBE because they understand the adversities that are happening in today's world (that's coming from educated individuals with dare I say it 'well paid jobs' no less) and that political decisions as well as money both failed to solve these issues. They understand a new approach is necessary.
If you cannot or refuse to understand that, well, that's you.

Now, kindly allow me to excuse myself from these forums so I can get some work done.

Have a nice life.

Petar Posavec:
tidak ada apa

Well that was fun, he talked about not letting cars hit people when I hadn't mentioned it at all, talked about his sisters without realizing that what happens in his own family counts for bubkis and wound the whole thing up with a condescending statement on how, if I wanted to live in the fairy kingdom I'd have to go out and find it myself. He didn't actually respond to anything that was in my post, but I suppose that this was the closest that the zeitgeist had in their stock forms.

I really liked the subtle insinuation that people are stupid and need shining genius like the zeitgeisters to save them, that combined with the 'the good people understand, why don't you?' was really the cherry on the pie, the great big, arrogant, intellectually hollow pie.

Bye Petar, I hope you find someone non critical enough to fawn over your perfect, morally superiour ideals.

Petar Posavec:
Now, kindly allow me to excuse myself from these forums so I can get some work done.

Have a nice life.

This bit just speaks volumes about the disgusting 'better than you all' attitude of the zeitgeisters.

Lilani:

Zeitgeist, zeitgeist...I've heard that word before. I think they fit in the "NWO/Illuminati/groups that people obsessively talk about but don't ever seem to get stuff done" area of my brain. Let's see, I need to learn about this some more.

I don't want to put down people who believe in stuff like secret societies because at least they're thinking and really, most of the big decisions in the world are made by small powerful groups, but I have to agree with you, they seem more interested in showing off how much they think they know how the world ACTUALLY works, then actually making any sacrafices to do anything about it.
The extent of their activism involves posting hysterical videos or saying some kind of cryptic nonsense and the extent of their knowledge of the situation comes from watching half baked documentaries.

I watched Zeigtgeist several years ago and for a couple months I got vaguely wraped up in it. If it did anything good it got me worried enough to research the issues brought up in it such as 9/11 and the Federal Reserve; Zeigtgeist works like a gateway to the conspiracy world for a lot of people.
While the Federal Reserve still seems like a fishy organization to me (on a fundamental level) the movie didn't correctly describe how it works at all and as far as 9/11 goes it's just a waste of time, there's no smoking gun like they proclaim and it's a fruitless endeavor to even try to find the "truth" about it.

Really all Zeitgeist does is give you random conspiracy tropes which seem like a big deal to people who havn't seen this kind of stuff before, but to people who's been into this stuff for a while, Zeitgeist is a joke and the resource based economy is so full of holes only the most willingless to do any research or thinking of their own would actually think it's feasible, let alone a way to "free" us.

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.

I have a card for you bro
you still have some waking up to do

Petar Posavec:

As for drunks... proximity sensors are a VERY old technology. We had the ability to install these little devices in cars since the early 20th century and prevent automobile accidents.
Why the heck do cars only have bumpers on the front and rear mostly? Why not on the sides?

Today, you can have self-driving cars on top of that.
In RBE, it wouldn't be necessary for people to actually DRIVE cars and they would be accident-proof (but where the heck is the profit today in doing that? Car manufacturers don't want you to actually die of course, but they do have a vested interest in you maintaining the vehicle on a regular basis by spending money).
If there's a human in your path, the car would essentially come to a dead stop and wouldn't allow you to go forward.
Technology based on magnets that repel each other is a VERY old concept and could have been applied with proximity sensors, so that car crashes would be avoided completely (the two vehicles would never even collide, they would essentially magnetically repel each other before a physical contact is made).

Ok, I'm going to leave the pseudo-psychology alone for the moment and just address the non snipped segments above. It seems fairly obvious at this point that you either have not taken a decent physics course, or should have flunked it.

-Prox sensors are useless at any significant relative speed. For the most common type of deadly accident, head on collisions, by the time a prox sensor triggers the collision is already inevitable. Superman might be still able to intervene, but the driver sure as hell can't in a significant manner.

-Bumpers are usually only placed at the front and rear because that is the only location they are actually useful. In order to protect a damn thing aside from your paint job from errant shopping carts, they require a significant amount of bracing and structural support that simply is not available along the sides. You could in theory make it work by significantly reworking the frame of the vehicle, but doing so would significantly increase the weight of the car while significantly decreasing its interior volume and usefulness.

-People have been attempting, and so far failing, to make an accident proof autodriven vehicle for decades, including but not limited to the military, private owners, and nearly all car dealerships. It can be done, and we are close, but it is not yet possible, much less available. RBE or no, none of the current test models are capable of matching human performance, and most of them are incapable of matching a drunk human's performance. It isn't greed that is holding us back on this concept, it is limitations in the software. Programs intelligent enough to be able to actually tell the difference between the road and a 100 ft deep canyon have only been around for the past decade or two, and they still get that distinction wrong from time to time.

-Magnets cannot be made to work that way, their field strength dies off too quickly with distance. An electromagnet strong enough to shove two opposing vehicles moving at any appreciable speed to the side (much less actually stop them) quickly enough to avoid a collision would also be more than strong enough to fuck up electrical equipment (including the electronic portions of the cars themselves), prevent you from actually opening any doors, rip keys out of your hand, some grandma's replacement hip out of its socket, etc. It would also mean that any vehicles behind you or to the side that get too close are attracted with a similar level of acceleration. All magnets have two poles after all.

Even if the... side effects of the magnetic field were a non issue, you're still effectively having the vehicles collide. All of the kinetic force of both vehicles is still enacted upon each other, just by proxy rather than actual physical contact. If human beings weren't actually involved, it would be rather amusing and freaking cool to see some idiot try this, only to have both vehicles crumple like paper without touching anything.

Petar Posavec:

Why the heck do cars only have bumpers on the front and rear mostly? Why not on the sides?

Today, you can have self-driving cars on top of that.
In RBE, it wouldn't be necessary for people to actually DRIVE cars and they would be accident-proof (but where the heck is the profit today in doing that? Car manufacturers don't want you to actually die of course, but they do have a vested interest in you maintaining the vehicle on a regular basis by spending money).
If there's a human in your path, the car would essentially come to a dead stop and wouldn't allow you to go forward.
Technology based on magnets that repel each other is a VERY old concept and could have been applied with proximity sensors, so that car crashes would be avoided completely (the two vehicles would never even collide, they would essentially magnetically repel each other before a physical contact is made).

In spite of their looks, bumpers aren't generally designed to be lifesavers. They're meant to stop minor accidents from doing structural damage to the chassis. You don't want a 10mph collision in a car park to right-off your car do you? Bumpers are primarily money saving devices.

Crumple zones, safety systems, and the chassis itself are what're meant to protect the occupants in the event of a serious accident by causing the kinetic energy of the impact to be diverted into damaging the bodywork of the car instead of being transferred into the occupants.

Take a look at this video:

It shows how the front of the car is designed to crumple on impact, thereby absorbing a lot of the kinetic energy of the impact, and slowing the rate of deceleration as felt by the occupant. Note that the chassis around the driver compartment stays completely intact in order to minimise the risk to occupants.
Also note that the bumper doesn't do anything! On a lot of these crash test videos (I was looking for a suitably illustrative example) the bumpers actually pop off and therefore don't do anything to protect the occupants in a high level collision. Putting bumpers on the side of your car isn't going to do anything extra if someone plows into you at 50mph

It's not some corporate conspiracy to save costs, it's a well-thought-out system that prevents cars from undergoing catastrophic damage (or for that matter compromising safety systems) in minor crashes, and protecting the occupants in the case of big ones.

On to magnetic buffers

This isn't going to work. Any magnet that's powerful to shove a car out of the way of a high speed collision is going to use a horrendous amount of energy, and be really bulky. But for the sake of the argument, lets assume that we have a magic magnet that's the size of a car battery and can do it.

Right off the bat, we're going to run into problems with Newton's 3rd. If the magnet is pushing your car away from an impact, it's going to have an equal impulse against your car in the opposite direction, kind of like the recoil of a gun. That's going to require a really sturdy mounting, especially given the sheer amount of recoil. This may sound like a petty point, but we're literally talking about the kind of mounting you see on medium calibre naval artillery.

Secondly, the magnetic is going to royally fuck up anything ferromagnetic near it when it fires. Sure, you may miss the collision, but that's not very helpful when you turn coins, keys, nuts, bolts, and assorted metalwork into shrapnel. And it doesn't bear thinking about what would happen if you had prosthetics, joint pins, or other surgical implants. Think I'm exaggerating? Look at this:

And that's a far less powerful magnet than you'd need for the purposes we're talking about (note the last few seconds of video), given the inverse square law and the distance you'd want to be deflecting at.

Last major problem is that assuming you fit these onto vehicles and they operate perfectly and don't cause any of the other problems, they'll be imparting an impulse on the vehicle that'll cause it to chance course near instantaneously[1], thus causing a very rapid deceleration. That's a problem, because it'll cause whiplash and other accelerative injuries to the victims even if they don't hit the other car.
In fact, given that physical impulses (for example, car bodywork deforming) are a relatively gradual process that causes a safer deceleration, thus reducing whiplash. You'd be better off actually hitting the other car because you'll be slowed more gently by the crumpling bodywork than the magnet would.

So yeah; this is, as presented, a really bad idea. You probably could use magnets to guide people into parking spaces, or as an additional safety measure to slightly reduce impact velocities during collision - but with current technology and materials it would be prohibitively expensive, and not work as well as the methods we use now.

I'm all for technology providing improved standards of living and safety, but the only examples that the Zeitgeist movement seems to provide simply aren't feasible. Am I missing something?

[1] As a tangent, that's why the military are researching railguns and other magnetically accelerated weapons. With a magnet you can provide far larger impulses than material distortion or chemical propellants can.

Heronblade:
-People have been attempting, and so far failing, to make an accident proof autodriven vehicle for decades, including but not limited to the military, private owners, and nearly all car dealerships. It can be done, and we are close, but it is not yet possible, much less available.

Positive example: http://youtu.be/hVESZiRcv6c Google self-driving car - September 2010.
Google already got the first law passed in Nevada so that these cars are now legal on the road http://phys.org/news/2011-06-google-driverless-car-law-nevada.html - June 2011.

WurmD:

Heronblade:
-People have been attempting, and so far failing, to make an accident proof autodriven vehicle for decades, including but not limited to the military, private owners, and nearly all car dealerships. It can be done, and we are close, but it is not yet possible, much less available.

Positive example: http://youtu.be/hVESZiRcv6c Google self-driving car - September 2010.
Google already got the first law passed in Nevada so that these cars are now legal on the road http://phys.org/news/2011-06-google-driverless-car-law-nevada.html - June 2011.

It's an important step, but isn't quite the same as an 'accident proof car'. People still need to be behind the wheel of these things because they fuck up on a regular basis and need a driver to correct them. They aren't running fleets of these things unmanned, they're testing a driving AI by letting it run on it's own with a person sitting in the drivers seat, able to override it whenever it makes a mistake. As your link points out, it's currently illegal to have the driver doing anything other than giving the road his undivided attention, on the grounds that the AI still screws up.
I'm sure with time and research they'll work better, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Until you make these systems perfect, interactive, and outlaw people driving altogether you aren't going to have an accident proof vehicle.

You aren't helping your case by taking a promising idea (the google car) and then exaggerating it (implying that they already work fine and are fully legal), and tacking on a load of demonstrably false pseudoscience (magnetic buffers and deflectors) to make it sound futuristic.

you know i wonder how all these zeitgeisters can believe this stuff when it was a movie made using public domain stock footage, in a guys basement, who has no formal education on any of the subjects of theology, economics, engineering or psychology.

OneCatch :
People still need to be behind the wheel of these things because they fuck up on a regular basis and need a driver to correct them.

Or, they already run better than a human (apparently, the only incident in 140'000 miles was someone else hitting it on the back), and the law simply does not know who to make responsible if it does fuck up - and the easy fix for the law is "you can only use this if you're looking at the road, so if the car fucks up, it's your fault for not avoiding it".

WurmD:

OneCatch :
People still need to be behind the wheel of these things because they fuck up on a regular basis and need a driver to correct them.

Or, they already run better than a human (apparently, the only incident in 140'000 miles was someone else hitting it on the back), and the law simply does not know who to make responsible if it does fuck up - and the easy fix for the law is "you can only use this if you're looking at the road, so if the car fucks up, it's your fault for not avoiding it".

Not true. The only actual accident in 140,000 miles was due to human error. But there's no knowing from available sources how many times it's made a mistake that, had it been independent, would have caused an accident.
It certainly seems that it happens relatively frequently because google feels that they still need a driver to compensate for these mistakes.

They've driven 1000 miles without human intervention, and 140,000 miles with some intervention. Not "with a person watching it" mind you, but "occasional human control". To me, that sounds like the driving AI need to be babysat in order to prevent accidents.
Additionally, they only work on roads that they have already mapped (by having someone drive the system manually along the same route) for lanes, road markings and so on.

Like I said in my above post, I'm sure that in time these things will become more successful, and end up on the market at some point in the next decade or so.
But it's dishonest to claim that they're ready right now, or are a magic solution to road accidents that the nasty government and corporations refuse to allow.

Guess its my duty to meticulously pick this apart.

Casemon:
@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:

Probably not.

* we all need to eat natural organic food and need to drink fresh pure water (as stated by our biology; sorry Monsanto and friends!).

There are no massive health benefits of eating organic food over other food. This is simply a naturalistic fallacy. Genetically engineered food can provide greater nutritional value to humans.

Absolutely Pure water is technically lethal due to it yanking the glucose out of cells. Lern2Osmosis.

* we all need adequate housing.

What constitutes adequate?

* 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.).

There is literally a GCSE course in the UK known as Functional skills, and courses specifically for practical science. These kinds of things are already the targets for education

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.

Except the different results stated so far are either undesirable, vague, or already achieved.

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)

This is a core concept of Fascism, not any modern system of government.

* We're told that we need conflict to prosper FALSE (look it up)

Also Fascism, this is hardly relevant any more.

* We're told that without a patriarchal government, we'll descend into chaos and (oooh scary) anarchy FALSE (look it up)

The anarchist movement is far more popular than the zeitgeist movement, so I see no reason to replace it with something that just claims the same stuff.

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)

The first thing is called sociology, it is something that people can choose to study.
The second thing is called the industrial revolution and that already happened.

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.

Ownership is simply the method by which we decide who can do what with what object. You will be rather pissed off if your clothing could be legally removed from you while walking down the street.

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

Mathematics is an imaginary concept too, but you are not advocating moving away from that.

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?

The dark ages are considered a biased phrase by most historians these days, as it was, for the most part, not as shitty as many people believe it to be.

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.

Yeah, great, tell us how to do this.

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?

Doctors, Teachers, Scientists and Humanitarians are often people in a position of reasonable wealth.

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

This is already being developed. China likes this system a lot.

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.

And algorithms cannot be biased? Anyway, maths is an imaginary concept, so according to you we should get rid of it.

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.

Do not equate greed with mental illnesses.

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.

Is this just a collection of buzz words or is this supposed to actually mean something?

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.

Because clearly the writer of Terminator was thinking "I know, I should try to make people hate the zeitgeist movement." while creating the film.

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)!

Ok, firstly, what the fuck do I do other than blab on the internet while sat on a Chair. Once again, you do not state how to achieve these things beyond moaning at people.

I think what happened to the USSR clearly shows how radical experiments can go horribly, horribly wrong. If you perform a forceful takeover, the leader generally picked is the military commander. Hello military dictatorship.

Lilani:
Lol, what? Have you not done YOUR geology and astronomy homework yet? I already told you Yellowstone blows ever 600,000 years and it's been 605,000 years since it last erupted, so that one's due pretty soon (well, geologically speaking, which means anywhere from a year to 20,000 years). Every other active volcano (and, FYI, geothermal energy requires an ACTIVE volcano) is sort of active, and as the name implies it will erupt at one point or another. They don't just sit there looking pretty, they blow. And when they blow, there isn't much we can do about it (or much we should, it's a perfectly natural process which the earth has gone through since it first formed).

Geological events like eruptions are not a good reason to avoid using Geothermal Energy, after all, it could be anything from decades to millennia before Yellowstone (or any other volcano really) decides to turn on us and the power generated in that time would still be pretty handy to have around.

But, I'm afraid I have bad news for Team Zeitgeist. I'm not really on your side. I'm just using this little devil's advocate bit as a clever lead in to the part where I start tearing apart your Clean Energy ideas. Lets run through Clean Energy, starting with:

Geothermal Energy:

Oh come on, you had to see this coming. I just destroyed one argument against this form of power to provide some humorous contrast to my sciencing! Geothermal Energy has some serious flaws, which basically write it off as an effective power source for most of the planet.

For starters, as mentioned by Lilani, it requires a geologically active area to be in. So for all the countries to have the misfortune to be geologically stable, well not much power there. And it's hardly a "clean" energy source, as it has a habit of releasing carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, methane and ammonia from the earth's crust, plus a nice slice of heavy metals and toxic chemicals get mixed into the injected water. But then there's the other issue with it, which is a major problem in geologically active areas...

It causes Earthquakes. Oh yes, this one just might be an issue. Turns out, pumping tonnes of water down into unstable areas is a very bad idea. The water, expanding due to the heat, increases the pressure on the rocks around the well, and they fracture, causing micro-quakes. This wouldn't be a serious problem if there were no active faultlines around, but in a lot of the areas where Geothermal Energy would work, there are active faultlines. As such, Geothermal Energy is considered a fun energy source when it can be used, but not a viable replacement for existing power plants. One Energy Source Down, what's next...

Tidal/Wave energy:

Another method that looks so great on paper, but in practice fails to impress. The idea is a solid one, the oceans throw around more energy than they know what to do with, all we need to do is grab a bit of it and everything will be gravy. But sadly, there's a catch...

A catch of delicious sea life! Because Tidal and Wave generators have a nasty habit of murdering the shit out of everything they can. In the spring of 2007, the Annapolis Royal Generating Station, a tidal station in Nova Scotia, Canada, found that their power station had set a new record in sealife murdering when they found the body of a young Humpback Whale that the Power Plant had casually killed. I've checked this against the biggest animal killed by a fossil fuel plant and find it outweighs it by about 50 metric tonnes. Advantage, tidal.

Apart from the aforementioned Nemo murdering tendencies of Tidal and Wave energy, there's one other factor that makes it a poor choice as an energy source. As anyone who works on or even near the sea can tell you, Salt Water has only one purpose in life, and that is to destroy. It hates everything that man has created and so sets out to ruin it all. As such, ocean based energy tends to require a lot of maintenance, as the aptly named fury of the ocean has a habit of breaking the generators. This means in addition to being the murderiest way to generate power, it's also among the most expensive, due to the need to constantly maintain the plants.

But hey, just because tidal energy doesn't work doesn't mean we can't use...

Wind/Solar power:

Damn, now I'm just being mean. Everyone love wind and solar power, they are made of sunshine and summer breezes. Literally. How can they fail as energy sources?

Well, you see kids, these guys have two big problems (solar actually has a third, but we'll get to that). First up, they are what we refer too as distributed energy sources. What this means is that they are everywhere. This seems like an advantage at first (everyone can use them, yay!), but actually it's a problem. Humanity needs a lot of energy, so small amounts of it everywhere is useless unless we can concentrate it all to where we need it. However, it seems that nature is refusing to cooperate, and so we have the odd situation of some countries needing to cover an area larger than their landmass with turbines and solar panels in order to generate enough energy to power themselves. Obviously, this is a bit of a design flaw, but at least it's clean, continuous energy, right?

Of course not. Big problem number two is the fact that these energy sources aren't very predictable. Solar loses efficiency big time on overcast days, and generates damn near nothing at night. Wind Energy is worse, losing efficiency whenever the fickle metaphorical butterfly decides to stop flapping it's wind spawning wings. And because humanity needs energy all the time, not just whenever nature feels up too it, these forms of energy are simply fun toys, but not serious replacements for existing infrastructure.

And then there's solar energy's super special third issue. Do you happen to live above the 45th parallel (north or south). If so, you might be familiar with a thing we refer too as "Winter". Not the crappy excuse for winter that occurs below the 45th, but the angry vengeful one where daylight hours drop to 9 hours and under (far under if you're north or south enough) at the solstice. If so, then solar energy is just going to break your heart. Because energy requirements go up during winter months, but sunlight goes down, and so if you are part of the roughly 3 billion people that happen to live here, no solar power for you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So yeah, clean energy. It sounds great, but in general it has some serious flaws that basically relegate it to being useless for any practical replacement of existing energy systems.

That's not to say I'm pro fossil fuels, of course. They've got to go. The future is fusion, but the future is a ways off yet, so in the meantime, lets rock out fission energy! It's main downside is radioactive waste, but luckily we can put that all in a watertight container, then put the container in a watertight underground facility, then seal that up and put up a big sign saying "do not open for 10,000 years". It's the cleanest energy source we have right now, but it's the one with the most bad press. But it's an option, which is more than I can say for the other dumbass ideas which I hope that I debunked in an entertaining manner for you all.

And now I am done. This is a fun thread.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked