Zeitgeist: Moving Forward reviews

[Ithekro]

Unless they managed to homogenize themselves before the atomic age (or early in said age) so that they have only one culture with strict rules and control over the society. Or they discovered a planetary destruction possibility soon enough to crash course the required technology for interplanetary travel and kept their failing, just moved them to interplanetary conflicts. At which point they might have destroyed elements of the civilization but the remainder might just spread out in search of resources...or perhaps a new home. Then it becomes advance or die.

There is also the idea they a society might be altruistic to their own species, but not so much to any other species. Maybe they managed to make it past our era of technology, but did so by favoring their species over all others on their planet. If an animal did not serve their needs, it was exterminated and those that were not were controlled or breed to serve some need. The externimated species now no longer use up resources for the remaining species. What does this species do when it finds another inhabited world? If it thinks the resources are easy to gather due to the hospitible nature of the planet...they weigh the cost of either enslaving (one way or another) or exterminating the other forms of life if they do not serve their own needs. The Species first...everything else is inferior or just an animal to exploit.

[Jinto]

This was an example. A silly one as I mentioned. Actually the whole matter is more complex. And if I had the time, I'ld try to explain it... lets just say, that a society at a certain level is not destroying diversity but encouraging diversity. In short (and therefore more confusing than convincing) In evolution, diversity is the only thing that prevents a society from ending up in a dead end. On your way to master evolution, you will master diversity. When mastering diversity you will master altruism.

[Asuras]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Yeah, but that's our view of things. Another highly-developed species may have different thought patterns. They may think on such a fundamentally different level as to not have our concepts of what's good and what's evil.

Unlike most sci-fi series, I suspect that any intelligent and advanced aliens out there will be so unlike us that our own preconceptions and beliefs and morals will mean jack all to them.

Exactly. Take the novel Solaris for example. The "sea" seems to communicate and think in an extremely unorthodox way compared to ourselves. Who's to say that a species besides our own can't be extremely altruistic but absolutely hostile to others? If you think of it this way, the altruistic aliens may be rightly angry, as the introduction of an extremely violent specie as ourselves could disrupt their own peace.
Our conventional ideas on other species upon a different planet is based completely on speculation that evolution generally plays out exactly the same way, everywhere.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Asuras

Exactly. Take the novel Solaris for example. The "sea" seems to communicate and think in an extremely unorthodox way compared to ourselves.

not really unorthodox (thought up by a human being) imo.

Originally Posted by Asuras

Who's to say that a species besides our own can't be extremely altruistic but absolutely hostile to others? If you think of it this way, the altruistic aliens may be rightly angry, as the introduction of an extremely violent specie as ourselves could disrupt their own peace.

That doesn't make sense to confine yourself in the limits of your own specie. Being hostile to others in a destructive way, will not work any longer when you reached a level, where destruction is most likely absolute and complete (for example: nuclear weapons despite their inherent danger, caused the cold war to remain cold most of the time). It is with the technological advancement of species that the acceptance of diversity gains. On the long run, it will be a competition of who blends best with everyone else... who can give and take most in combination with others (a synergy competition). So in that sense, being non-compliant with a synergy searching species means you have to remain on your own, which will be a drastic disadvantage. Why fight a war, when you can let the non-compliant specie defeat itself (thats also more econimcal than wasting resouces in a war).

On that note that humankind is too violent to ever be part of something like a synergy club... it is not unthinkable that more advanced species parent less advanced species for future gains in synergies. This parenting could be done in a way that the less advanced specie does not even notice it.

Originally Posted by Asuras

Our conventional ideas on other species upon a different planet is based completely on speculation that evolution generally plays out exactly the same way, everywhere.

Just speak for yourself.

[Asuras]

Originally Posted by Jinto

It is with the technological advancement of species that the acceptance of diversity gains.

Wait.. Says who? You? You keep assuming things like they're a standard. Again, not every species has the same thought process as us. It can be drastically different. So different that we might not even comprehend it. Yet it is truth to them, and reality is based on perception. Our ideas are not universal law, no matter how bad it seems to kill a person for no reason.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Asuras

Wait.. Says who? You? You keep assuming things like they're a standard.

No, I just weight possibilities and take the most likely one.

Originally Posted by Asuras

Again, not every species has the same thought process as us.

For example you cannot agree with me. Do I have your thought process? Certainly not. But I accept your stance on the matter. I just think it is the evolutionary dead end (possibility-wise).

Originally Posted by Asuras

It can be drastically different. So different that we might not even comprehend it.

It seems my ideas have the same effect on you No need for another species.

Originally Posted by Asuras

Yet it is truth to them, and reality is based on perception. Our ideas are not universal law, no matter how bad it seems to kill a person for no reason.

Your deduction of universal law => kill a person... really speaks volumes about your thought process though. ^^'

[Asuras]

Originally Posted by Jinto

For example you cannot agree with me. Do I have your thought process? Certainly not. But I accept your stance on the matter. I just think it is the evolutionary dead end (possibility-wise).

So, you mean to say that absolute altruism and complete indifference to violence is the last stage of evolution? Because if so, you probably realize, that evolution doesn't have an end. You can always make something better, because perfection is impossible.

Originally Posted by Jinto

It seems my ideas have the same effect on you No need for another species.

...Merh.

Originally Posted by Jinto

Your deduction of universal law => kill a person... really speaks volumes about your thought process though. ^^'

It's just an example...
Or is it?

[WordShaker]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter_Toki

Likewise I don't think the enviornmental argument is very convincing (at least to the scale of it's effects).

As for competition brewing suffering around the world and throughout history all I have to say is that it was worth it.

I can agree to an extent. Human nature exists to a limited degree, but I don't think you can discount the overriding effect our environment has on our actions. If a person sells their labor (i.e. works), it's normally because their environment has forced them to; the worker works because they face unemployment (often outside their own control) and a lower standard of living, starvation, death, what-have-you otherwise--not exactly a real choice. The environment, being capitalistic society, forces the worker to sell his wage labor in competition with other workers. That's the real essence of the ZG movement's argument, I think, which is rather in-line with a lot of anti-capitalist thought.

I can't say it was worth it, but that's really a moot point. Is it worth it now? The basic necessities of every human on the planet can be met right now, even exceeded, but the reality of the current economic system means that the majority of resources are funneled to the world's top economies and the populace that can afford them. To illustrate, why has progress in ending malnutrition and hunger barely inched forward when "world agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase" (scroll to article 11 of the resolution)? It's not a matter of food production, but a matter of economic competition.

Originally Posted by Asuras

Capitalism? CAPITALISM has caused our fierce competition?! It's painfully evident my friend that we've competed all our lives. Since day one, every living thing on this planet has competed for the top. Merely changing an economic stance doesn't make you competitive. Even without capitalism, every other form of government and economy has shown that the majority of the population competes for something.

Being that ZG is an anti-capitalist movement, that is at the heart of the discussion.

Before we go further, we need to separate biological competition from social competition. The two, while related, are separate things and should not be conflated.

Biological competition merely describes the basic instinct to survive and is forced upon organisms as an outgrowth of their environment. Competition necessarily exists because resources--or, rather, resource potential, being what resources an organism can realistically get and use, and varies for every individual organism--are necessarily scarce. Hypothetically speaking, if resources (in terms of everything from land to whatever else) were virtually infinite, then biological competition would not exist.

Social competition, too, exists as an outgrowth of one's environment, but it is far removed from any basic instinct. The accumulation of capital property (that being the means of production, being resources, labor power, etc.) must be a conscious action, as property is by definition a social construct, a thoroughly human invention. Property does not exist in nature. The concept of property was invented to justify the accumulation of power into the hands of individuals; more benignly, property was a way to protect a person's rights to things they claimed ownership over. Property can exist only within the state, another thoroughly human invention; owned things, protected only by force and not by the state (and law), are nothing more than resources as found in nature. Unlike biological competition, social competition exists independent of the availability of resources; even a post-scarcity society would fall to social competition if the means belonged to a small elite.*

*I use "property" here as shorthand for capital property, which excludes things that are not part of the means of production (i.e. homes, clothing, etc.)

Under this definition of property and social competition, which is debatable, it holds that, yes, capitalism is the system that currently causes the fierce competition the ZG movement argues against. ZG's advocacy of cooperation is intended to increase the aggregate resource potential of humanity to overcome scarcity (for needs, not for luxury items like natural gems, which are scarce by nature).

Capitalism caused overproduction for the few and scarcity for the many? It was the same way before capitalism or industrialization were even a conceived word.

Even in systems where surplus property (general sense) was unheard of? I hate to sound like a broken record, but I again point to pre-agrarian societies that could not have accumulated surplus property in any sense. Even into ancient history up to the feudal era, overproduction did not exist; surplus did, I'll give you that, but production was more or less subsistence-based (including slave-societies like helot-owning Greek city-states) where scarcity was rather real. Only the industrial nature of capitalism and the accumulation of capital, this time in the hands of the bourgeoisie rather than the state (monarchy, republic, the whole gamut), has produced surplus value while maintaining artificial scarcity in many things.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Without villains, the world has no need for heroes.

I'm okay with that! I have no pressing need to be Shirou right now. The lack of Rin will be saddening, though.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

We agree.
Kropotkin's idea did have merit as an untried theory of the 1800s.
Steven J. Gould tried to act as an apologist for Kropotkin awhile back in one of his papers/lectures on Mutual Aid theory.
The problem with the theory is it fails to realize that while the man promoting probably has pure intentions (which I believe Kropotkin did), the people who implement it and put the theory into real practice historically do not.

The Soviet Union was the ultimate experiment in Socialist theory, and it was an abysmal failure.
Lenin's virtuous dream of a Workers' Paradice was plagued with the ambitions, desires, and schemes of the politically powerful around him.
From the KGB to the labor unions, there were numerous individuals and groups seething with the desire to gain power.

Stalin is the epitome of the failure of Socialist Theory when he proved that corrupt despotism was the political-evolutionary pinnacle of all socialistic systems put into practice.

Leon Trotskyshould have become the Premier of the USSR, but due to the natural instinct of man to dominate, conquer, and crush his fellow man for his own ambition, Trotsky was exiled and then Stalin had the KGB put an ice-pick into the back of Trosky's head.

That event is one of many which proved (to me at least) that collectivist theory is not worth the sacrifice of personal property nor the ability to keep government in check via the capitalist system.

It's a good thing I don't subscribe to socialism, then!

Even so, while it's true that the USSR--which I'd have to describe as state-capitalist rather than socialist, being that the Party bureaucracy ended any vestiges of proletarian dictatorship and simply maintained the aspects of capitalism under state control--eventually failed, it accomplished rather great things (good and bad) over its lifetime. This is all rather off-topic to ZG, though, so we can continue this little strand of discussion over PM or something.

Natural selection is by its very nature competitive especially when two species (or elements within a specie group) must fight over finite resources.

Take for example males who compete (either by fighting, or plumage, or dancing [as with some birds], etc.) for the right to mate with a female.
They are competing for the right to pass down their genetic code.
Only the most competitive and strongest will do so with the best females, while the lesser types will mate with lesser females.
The least successful will not mate at all and their inferior line will cease.
That's basic evolutionary theory.
The species which are best suited to survival succeed, the ones who aren't become extinct.

Of course, I acknowledge the role of competition in natural selection and that, yes, competition is a process by which natural selection occurs. This still precludes the role of mutualism, which exists side by side with biological competition, in natural selection. I also understand that this is trying to extend biological competition = evolutionary success to social competition = progress, but I find that inaccurate, as explained above.

Uh...no.

The Aztecs were cutting out the hearts of their captives and eating them in the Americas.
Native Americans had a time honored tradition of scalping their captives.
Africa has been war torn since before the first Kingdom in Egypt, that's like what 5000+ years?

I don't know where you're learning about all this kum-ba-ya nonsense regarding ancient and savage man, but it's just flat out wrong.
The ancient astronaut (or astronut if you prefer ) theory has more credibility than the concept of flower-power primitives.

There was no mutual cooperation between tribes unless it was for mutual survival.
Man is a vicious, flesh-eating, war-making, animal with an apetite for killing that few other species can rival.
Oh we have our good side also...now, but when man lived as a savage in the early hunter-gatherer cultures, he was a very dangerous beast.
He had to be in order to survive.

Oh, I know full well they weren't perfect, but their society demonstrates that competition is not the only way for humanity to progress. And if we're going to get into the pretty sick stuff humans have done, whoo boy are we going to have a long list.

BTW, all warfare is Imperialist by its very nature.
You've heard of the Babylonian/Persian Empire right?
Existed around 3000 BC.
They weren't waging war for honor, they were doing it for plunder.
The Persians were kicking butt and conquering their neighbors until the Arabs handed them their ass in the 600s AD.

I make no defense of empires and their wars.

Since the dawn of civilization ALL GOVERNMENTS have been Imperialist.
The USSR was one of the most Imperialist socialist countries on Earth during its time.
Imperialism is simply, the extension of rule or influence by one government, nation, or society over another.
Socialism claims to be anti-Imperialist in theory, but again reality shows a very different story.
Stalin, more than any other Socialist leader, proved that socialism was Imperialist when he took the Balkin states, Ukraine, tried to take Finland, and took most of Eastern Europe.

No -ism or -ology has a monopoly on being Imperialist.
They're all guilty of it without exception.

I don't disagree, except on the idea socialism is imperialist. The USSR may have been imperialist, but that was an extension of it's state-capitalist nature. Take it to the PMs?

I'll do you one better...because I'm such a nice guy.

Here's a fine explanation of my point.
http://www.fpri.org/footnotes/1402.2...echnology.html

You and I might be reading it different ways, but, as I see it, the article merely talks about how innovation has shaped warfare (of course) and how military research leads to military innovation (a given). The thing being debated here is whether the modern research competition "against the status quo" (as put in the article, though I have a rather more cynical take on that) is the only driver of innovation, which is still in doubt.

Saying it can't be helped is not dodging the issue, it's acknowledging who and what we are as a species.
This is where Zeitgeist fails utterly.
It proposes to change humanity via computer/machine control without addressing who will control/maintain the machines.

And that's one of the things I utterly hate about it! Far too dangerous to personal liberty, that. I like my irrationalities!

It claims a non-economy will be used to exchange the value of labor rather than money, and yet fails to address the fact that this system would be ripe for corruption, abuse, and eventual despotism on a global level.
Zeitgeist fails to explain what will be done with (or to) the people who do not wish to be apart of this global system.

Rather than a non-economy, it sounds more like a...rather strictly defined gift economy. *shrugs* Not so much "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." A gift economy, though, is my ideal. Corruption in a moneyless society would be dealt with through collective shunning; that is, individuals who attempt to subvert the system are left out of it.

I've said it before, and I'll kindly repeat for your benefit wassupimviet.
Zeitgeist is anti-human, it is a threat to mankind simply because it does not accept man for who he is and what his nature is.

Put another way, Zeitgeist is a 19th century solution (Utopian socialist-technocracy) to a 17th century problem (mercantilism).
We need a 21st (or at least 20th Century) solution to the 20th Century problem we're currently stuck in (Corporatism).

Ugh, no offense, but that line of thinking really irks me. Accepting "man for who he is and what his nature is" would have left humanity as a whole far, far backwards. Humanity has progressed by pressing on the limits of what human nature really constitutes and how much of what we call "nature" is really just how the oppressive environment around us has affected us.

And call me "Wassup", to all involved. The whole name is a mouthful, a little relic of a 10-year old me plugging into the 'net.

Originally Posted by Solace

I know you mean well Sugetsu but your theory is flawed.

Competition can be good and bad. Healthy competition promotes respect, civility, creative thinking, fun, happiness, well being, and other positive reinforcements. A cheap example would be little things like our forum contests. We don't offer much, if any, incentive beyond a little bit of recognition. The driving motivator for most contestants is friendly competition.

It is true that competition can breed negative behaviors, like collusion, manipulation, anger, arguing, jealousy, etc., but you're forgetting that negative behaviors are reinforced by the environment. For example, take your average internet forum such as AnimeSuki. The ability to have civil discussion is largely in part to strong moderation attracting users who want to express their opinions within a relatively relaxed environment. Compare this to the average unmoderated forum which quickly fills with people who couldn't discuss their way out of a paper bag without resorting to immature behavior.

It is true that even a site like ours attracts posters who lack the ability to form a coherent argument. Most don't last long however, and those that do, adapt once they realize it's pointless to act like an idiot.

It may be in our *nature* to have undesirable traits (if you want to argue human nature), but it is how we *nurture* the people and environment they are in that ultimately results in the creation of desired traits and conditions.

I'm sorry, but I'm a little confused here.

Sugetsu, as I've seen, has consistently argued that it is the environment that creates social competition. This sounds like it's largely in agreement with that argument.

[Asuras]

Originally Posted by wassupimviet

Biological competition merely describes the basic instinct to survive and is forced upon organisms as an outgrowth of their environment. Competition necessarily exists because resources--or, rather, resource potential, being what resources an organism can realistically get and use, and varies for every individual organism--are necessarily scarce. Hypothetically speaking, if resources (in terms of everything from land to whatever else) were virtually infinite, then biological competition would not exist.

Social competition, too, exists as an outgrowth of one's environment, but it is far removed from any basic instinct. The accumulation of capital property (that being the means of production, being resources, labor power, etc.) must be a conscious action, as property is by definition a social construct, a thoroughly human invention. Property does not exist in nature. The concept of property was invented to justify the accumulation of power into the hands of individuals; more benignly, property was a way to protect a person's rights to things they claimed ownership over. Property can exist only within the state, another thoroughly human invention; owned things, protected only by force and not by the state (and law), are nothing more than resources as found in nature. Unlike biological competition, social competition exists independent of the availability of resources; even a post-scarcity society would fall to social competition if the means belonged to a small elite.*

*I use "property" here as shorthand for capital property, which excludes things that are not part of the means of production (i.e. homes, clothing, etc.)

Under this definition of property and social competition, which is debatable, it holds that, yes, capitalism is the system that currently causes the fierce competition the ZG movement argues against. ZG's advocacy of cooperation is intended to increase the aggregate resource potential of humanity to overcome scarcity (for needs, not for luxury items like natural gems, which are scarce by nature).

Yea. Because cooperation is a very human attribute.
It'd all be fine and dandy if we were a hive system.

Without capitalism, we lose a key position in the world order. Without outside sources, we'd have little back up to fall upon when the going gets tough with our own production. Relying on our own cooperation (which is a joke, by the way) to fit the needs of millions on a single continent that can't realistically produce everything we want or like isn't viable in my opinion.

"Property is by definition a social construct"
We fight over land even without elites. Or a social order for that matter. Property is a very biological idea, not social. Go outside and fight a bear for his territory, see how it is.

"Even a post-scarcity society would fall to social competition if the means belonged to a small elite."
And you think a small elite wouldn't rise up in your ZG society? You keep forgetting a core principle of every creatures natural intention; power. When there's no one at the top and no ladder to climb, any man with ambition and a bunch of burly followers can revert civilization back to its old habits.

[synaesthetic]

The massive amounts of dissent in this thread pretty much confirm the fact that Zeitgeist will never happen, or will require massive piles of corpses in order to achieve.

I'll freely admit that I'd rather eat a bullet than live in such a society. I enjoy being myself, a unique individual, a free-thinking entity.

I'd rather die than be a (beige) cog in the (beige) machine.

You may argue that I am already a cog in the machine, but I beg to differ. I have choice, even if you will not acknowledge that. I can choose my career. I can choose what to learn. I can choose who to like, who to hate.

We have choice, but the ZM proponents want us to believe we don't have choice, because they wish for a world in which nobody has choices, where all our choices are made for us by an overseer computer.

A lot of people think the fact that choices have consequences mean that we don't have choices. That's utter bull.

[Edward.E]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

The massive amounts of dissent in this thread pretty much confirm the fact that Zeitgeist will never happen, or will require massive piles of corpses in order to achieve.

I'll freely admit that I'd rather eat a bullet than live in such a society. I enjoy being myself, a unique individual, a free-thinking entity.

I'd rather die than be a (beige) cog in the (beige) machine.

You may argue that I am already a cog in the machine, but I beg to differ. I have choice, even if you will not acknowledge that. I can choose my career. I can choose what to learn. I can choose who to like, who to hate.

We have choice, but the ZM proponents want us to believe we don't have choice, because they wish for a world in which nobody has choices, where all our choices are made for us by an overseer computer.

A lot of people think the fact that choices have consequences mean that we don't have choices. That's utter bull.

ehmm did we watch the same movie and do we live in the same world?

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by wassupimviet

It's a good thing I don't subscribe to socialism, then!

Indeed!

Even so, while it's true that the USSR--which I'd have to describe as state-capitalist rather than socialist, being that the Party bureaucracy ended any vestiges of proletarian dictatorship and simply maintained the aspects of capitalism under state control--eventually failed, it accomplished rather great things (good and bad) over its lifetime. This is all rather off-topic to ZG, though, so we can continue this little strand of discussion over PM or something.

Agreed, though I also must point out that it was Benito Mussolini who first realized that Socailism inevitably leads not to communism, but to Fascism/Corporatism.
His doctrine clearly states this.:

...Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State

That said I must admit you make an interesting point, and I don't think it deviates from what Zeitgeist is proposing at all.
Remember, Lenin succeeded in creating an actual proletarian dictatorship, which Lenin believed required a dictator to function properly.

In the same vein we find that Zeitgeist has its Lenin (Peter Joseph) who is preaching a Utopian vision of communal ownership (resource based economy), and redistribution through a technocracy (via machine), but does not as of yet indicate who the secretariat class will be (since all societies require a managerial group).

Here in lies the danger of the Zeitgeist movement.
It, like Lenin's Soviet Union, proposes a system that will absolutely have to have a centralized controlling body (be it technicians for the machines or an actual Soviet Council).
That body (whatever it is) would have absolute power over the other strata of such a society either via direct control or through the machines.
Lenin's Russia operated along a similar vein, but only for a very short period of time.

Lenin's Russia essentially lasted until his policy of War Communism caused the famine of 1921-23.
After the death of more than 7.5 million Russians from starvation and disease, Lenin was forced by the economic realty before him to institute the NEP.
The NEP is where the Russian State-Capitalism (also known as Corporatism) first took root.

Now, if the Resource Based Economy flops, and I believe it will, then what would be the obvious result?

If the land is being used only to produce enough food for what the current population requires in order to preserve the land, then any unexpected event, a failure of crops, or mass civil unrest/war, would certainly result in starvation of the populous.

That's exactly what happened under Lenin's War Communism policy and most certainly what would happen under a Resource Based non-Economy.
This is precisely why when Stalin came to power he chose to move the Soviet Union from a Marxian Socialist system to a State-Capitalist one.
The Chinese have done the same thing, as have many formerly socialist systems.
What is State-Capitalism?
Well, it's not really Capitalism in the classic sense of the term (a la Adam Smith or John Locke).
Wilhelm Liebknecht coined the term in 1896 when he said: "Nobody has combatted State Socialism more than we German Socialists; nobody has shown more distinctively than I, that State Socialism is really State capitalism!"

That's where Zeitgeist will almost certainly lead.
From a collectivized system of Utopian Socialism into a despotic form of State-Capitalism which is probably better described as Monopolistic-Corporatism since the government becomes the primary corporation that gives license to smaller corporations that control the various industries.

Of course, I acknowledge the role of competition in natural selection and that, yes, competition is a process by which natural selection occurs. This still precludes the role of mutualism, which exists side by side with biological competition, in natural selection. I also understand that this is trying to extend biological competition = evolutionary success to social competition = progress, but I find that inaccurate, as explained above.

I understand, we're coming from very differing viewpoints, and where I see natural selection as suvival of the fittest you see something entirely different.
I think it best to agree to disagree on this point and move on, since we both agree that competition does play some role in natural selection.

Oh, I know full well they weren't perfect, but their society demonstrates that competition is not the only way for humanity to progress. And if we're going to get into the pretty sick stuff humans have done, whoo boy are we going to have a long list.

YES it would!!
Which is why we all must strive to weed out any ideology or movement that will increase the blood on the hands of humanity, and why I see Zeitgeist as a danger.

I don't disagree, except on the idea socialism is imperialist. The USSR may have been imperialist, but that was an extension of it's state-capitalist nature. Take it to the PMs?

Can we agree that socialism degenerates into corporatism/state-capitalism and thus becomes imperialist?

You and I might be reading it different ways, but, as I see it, the article merely talks about how innovation has shaped warfare (of course) and how military research leads to military innovation (a given). The thing being debated here is whether the modern research competition "against the status quo" (as put in the article, though I have a rather more cynical take on that) is the only driver of innovation, which is still in doubt.

The part I'm referring to is this:

My propositions are these: (1) technology, more than any other outside force, shapes warfare; and, conversely, war (not warfare) shapes technology.

Rather than a non-economy, it sounds more like a...rather strictly defined gift economy. *shrugs* Not so much "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." A gift economy, though, is my ideal. Corruption in a moneyless society would be dealt with through collective shunning; that is, individuals who attempt to subvert the system are left out of it.

Again we agree.
While I find the Marxian view distasteful, I do think the Zeitgeist Resource-Based-Economy follows a "gift economic" plan which again is more akin to Rouvroy and Utopian Socialism.
Unfortunately individuals who do not conform to most collectivist systems are not shunned, they're killed.

Ugh, no offense, but that line of thinking really irks me. Accepting "man for who he is and what his nature is" would have left humanity as a whole far, far backwards. Humanity has progressed by pressing on the limits of what human nature really constitutes and how much of what we call "nature" is really just how the oppressive environment around us has affected us.

No offense taken.

However, allow me to retort.
When one looks at the history and development of mankind what does one see?
Answer, a series of continuing wars that lead to greater and greater development in both technology, and civilization.
This is not to say that war or warfare is the only force that drives us to push our nature to its limits, but it is a major (if not the major) force.
That is why I say, "we are what we are, and we must accept it."

[Sugetsu]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

The massive amounts of dissent in this thread pretty much confirm the fact that Zeitgeist will never happen, or will require massive piles of corpses in order to achieve.

This aren't the only boards on the internet. Any other boards that have very few people from the US, or are left leaning, generally like the idea of the movement a lot. Europe and south america seem to have the biggest number of followers. The reason for me to post about the ZG movement in these boards is to put its ideas to the test against such a large conservative crowd. I want to find out what are its most deterring aspects to right leaning people.

So far I have determined that the biggest criticism coming from this forum is:

1: It is an Utopian dream.
2: It is another form of communism.
3: It goes against human nature.

To which I have already given the following answers:

1: It might seem like an utopia if you simply transfer the current average individual and place him in the futurist society of the Venus Project, because a change in the conditioning of the individual is required in order for such a society to work. It is the same as placing a caveman in wall street.
The idea of Utopia is also incoherent because perfection is impossible to achieve.
2: This society doesn't have laws, it doesn't have law enforcement, it doesn't have any political structure and it doesn't use money.
3: Humans are the reflection of their environment and their behavioral traits are defined by 3 factors: Nature, biology and nurture.

[synaesthetic]

It's pointless to argue with you. Your slavish devotion to this misguided philosophy is fundamental on the order of extremist Christianity.

Have fun giving all your money to Scientology v2.0 the Zeitgeist Movement!

[Sugetsu]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Have fun giving all your money...

You have basically stated that you don't have a clue or don't care to listen. I am inclined to think it is the later.

[GuidoHunter_Toki]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

To which I have already given the following answers:

1: It might seem like an utopia if you simply transfer the current average individual and place him in the futurist society of the Venus Project, because a change in the conditioning of the individual is required in order for such a society to work. It is the same as placing a caveman in wall street.
The idea of Utopia is also incoherent because perfection is impossible to achieve.
2: This society doesn't have laws, it doesn't have law enforcement, it doesn't have any political structure and it doesn't use money.
3: Humans are the reflection of their environment and their behavioral traits are defined by 3 factors: Nature, biology and nurture.

1. This I agree on as far as what it is describing isn't technically a utopia. Still doesn't change my idea that it will be impossible to achieve by any rational means, or at the veyr least have it continuasly work. Such a system would break down quite fast I believe (every system that has ever been created breaks down eventually).

2. Lots of ways for instability to arise.

3. Those are the big 3, but changing one's envionrment isn't a full proof answer (nor do I believe it will be as effective as you think); people tend to "break away" or explore different teachigns, methods, and ideas apart from the normal social structures at points in their life. Something is always gonna come back to bite you in the butt when it comes to humans. This will never change.


The world the Venus Project would create seems like quite the boring place. I don't mean to sound like a prick but our shitty world excites me with all it's troubles and beauties. Erasing all "strife" in the world creates an ugly world in my viewpoint. Now by essentially saying such things I tend to hear excuses like, "put yourselves in these peoples shoes" or "you think starving people or those inflicted by war think the same thing". No, I'm not those people. If I ever came into a situation as those people I don't know how I'd react, but I like to be prepared (reading comes in handy). Those with troubled lives have choices just like everyone else. There're ways they can overcome their hardships, just like everyone else. Only difference is that they have a harder road to climb, but in many ways this betters themselves if they achieve it or not. Wow I've kind of gone off on a different topic here so I'll stop.

I bet if I was "conditioned" I wouldn't think such things. (you can just disregard this last line as playful banter)

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

You have basically stated that you don't have a clue or don't care to listen. I am inclined to think it is the later.

No, I just see what you refuse to see because you can't imagine thinking poorly of your god.

The Venus Project has taken in a loooot of donation funds, but they haven't done a goddamned thing with them. Where's the promised test city?

Oh, and you still never answered my question. How does your beige future handle a person walking into your resource warehouse and clearing the fucking place out? With no laws and no police, and supposedly (according to you) no rationing or otherwise threats of force to prevent people from taking too much...

How does it work? You tell me. You're the one with all the answers, right?

[Sugetsu]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter_Toki

1. This I agree on as far as what it is describing isn't technically a utopia. Still doesn't change my idea that it will be impossible to achieve by any rational means, or at the veyr least have it continuasly work. Such a system would break down quite fast I believe (every system that has ever been created breaks down eventually).

You haven't watched Moving Forward yet. You said it a few posts above. When you do ask me again how the idea is irrational.

2. Lots of ways for instability to arise.

There is no need for instability to arise if there aren't any incentives present. The environment incentives its living beings to act the way they do. Specifically, the overwhelming majority of society's problems are money related.

3. Those are the big 3, but changing one's envionrment isn't a full proof answer (nor do I believe it will be as effective as you think); people tend to "break away" or explore different teachigns, methods, and ideas apart from the normal social structures at points in their life. Something is always gonna come back to bite you in the butt when it comes to humans. This will never change.

People break away because they are provided with special conditions to think and act differently. Behavior is tied to genetic propensities and weather those are stimulated through nurture, and nature defines the living conditions and necessities of the living organism.

Of course, people will think in many different ways as they have always done but they will remain conditioned by the system until it is discovered that it can be changed for the better, it would be the same as we are now, no matter our religion, culture and nationality we still believe that money is important.

The world the Venus Project would create seems like quite the boring place. I don't mean to sound like a prick but our shitty world excites me with all it's troubles and beauties. Erasing all "strife" in the world creates an ugly world in my viewpoint. Now by essentially saying such things I tend to hear excuses like, "put yourselves in these peoples shoes" or "you think starving people or those inflicted by war think the same thing". No, I'm not those people. If I ever came into a situation as those people I don't know how I'd react, but I like to be prepared (reading comes in handy). Those with troubled lives have choices just like everyone else. There're ways they can overcome their hardships, just like everyone else. Only difference is that they have a harder road to climb, but in many ways this betters themselves if they achieve it or not. Wow I've kind of gone off on a different topic here so I'll stop.

I bet if I was "conditioned" I wouldn't think such things. (you can just disregard this last line as playful banter)

To claim that venus project would be quite a boring place is a very subjective thing to say that has no solid basis. Do people living in the jungle think that they have a boring life? How do you know? Yes you are conditioned by your environment to think that life without the things you are used to see every day would be boring, That's what they want you to think so you keep buying their stuff.

I personally think I would be quite liberating to live in world without commercials, politics, social laws and boundaries. To be free of slave labor and the subtle influences of the mass media. To be able to do what I want and not worry about a roof to live under or food to feed myself.

Regardless of our difference of opinion, such a society won't be possible in our life time and may think a few generations to reach. But there can be immediate benefits from a transitory point of view by getting most countries in the world to eliminate Usury, debt, declaring earth's resources a right of all humanity, and work towards eliminating world hunger through the application of science without seeking profit. These of course very difficult goals to accomplish. I posted a lot of info in regards to transition questions here, you should check it out.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

]No, I just see what you refuse to see because you can't imagine thinking poorly of your god.

The Venus Project has taken in a loooot of donation funds, but they haven't done a goddamned thing with them. Where's the promised test city?

Oh, and you still never answered my question. How does your beige future handle a person walking into your resource warehouse and clearing the fucking place out? With no laws and no police, and supposedly (according to you) no rationing or otherwise threats of force to prevent people from taking too much...

How does it work? You tell me. You're the one with all the answers, right?

I have been talking about how that works way too many times already, check this very post for answers to all your questions. Including those in regards to donations and the test city.

[synaesthetic]

Sorry, Sugetsu, but the "happiness in slavery" and "ignorance is bliss" cards aren't the best things in the world you can use to support your views.

Do you want to lose your sense of self? Or are you, like most of the ZM zealots, believing that by being in on the "ground floor" of the project, that you'll be the ones propping yourself up as the rulers?

I like my freedom and I don't like your slavery. And I'd appreciate it greatly if you'd actually respond to my utter destruction of your points, rather than just pointing at the propaganda film.

Rather than spending all of our efforts on your happy-koombaya-techno-hippie fantasy wank, we should be trying to fix real problems, like how to apply Sammy Hagar logic to the speed limit of the universe. Your solution isn't a solution. It won't save humanity from extinction. Nothing will, short of spreading out among the stars.

[Ithekro]

I find something funny in this round of discussion. The Zeitgeist Movement seems to be a form of Non-conformist's ideal of what the future could be like and that we can all be happy, provided for, and at peace. The irony is that it creates a conformist society. What would be today conformist thinkers would be the non-conformists and be causing trouble in one way or another. Counter-culture movements in Project Venus would be interesting to see. Even the ones that reject the idea that a computer should have to tell them what they need...that they should be able to tell what they need on their own. Or the ones that would live an alternate live style regardless of the social, political, or cultural background they are in.