AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2011-01-29, 18:28   Link #21
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
Quote:
Officially their proposed model for goverment is global central planning, ran by algorithms free of any subjectivity. It's different from any past goverment model because it's a global system, doesn't involve people making opinionated descisions, is resource-based, doesn't involve currency, has a huge reduction in laws and civilian duties.
What blows my mind is how much faith they put in their "algorithms" to fairly allocate resources to everyone without any sort of bias.

Computers can be hacked, you know. They can be compromised. They can even be designed in a fashion in which the numbers they return are predictable and follow a predetermined pattern.

A computer is not an entity unto itself. It is a tool.

My question for the Zeitgeist followers:

What would your system do if someone wanted more than they were given? What would the system do if I went to your resource allocation department and took everything in it?

Does it work on the honor system or is there some sort of hard-coded limit?
__________________
synaesthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-29, 18:56   Link #22
Ithekro
Warning
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
That is probably the reason I like the Star Trek model more...it is not an enclosed circle, nor is it run by a computer. I never much paid attention to the economics of Star Trek's 23rd and 24th centuries (hell, until the late-1980s we assumed Starfleet officers got paid with some form of currency, as in "credits".), but I always like the optimism of the rest of the universe. Space exploration specifically.

However, look at the model used. Earth in the 23rd and 24th centuries is not alone in the galaxy...it has many, many colonies, mining outposts, "military" bases (even if Roddenberry insisted that Starfleet wasn't a military orginization...it really is), science stations, trade partners, and even hostile borders. Earth's economy, one can assume is mostly off world when it comes to resources gathered...be it minerals or energy. Food may be native grown still, but that is helped by the fact that humanity has expanded into the local star systems. The population of Earth itself has likely been reduced due to the colonization of so many planets (and the Third World War in the 21st century). Therefore the economy isn't a closed circle, but at least for the planet Earth, an economy of plenty. There is no want on Earth because you can literally get anything you want. There is so much since the planet has access to literally hundreds of planets and dozens fo stars for resources. Energy is not an issue after the means of moving from one star to another effectively is done, and the expendature of energy is ourweighed by the ability to collect more (massive solar stations, efficient fusion reactors, the ability to strip mine uninhabited planets to fuel the ecomony).

Basically the Star Trek model is one of expansion through use of science and techology. Once the technological problems are overcome and the human race can expand without expending the entire planet to do so, then the economic problems change as the ability to gain the resources of other planets outweight the cost of gaining those technological breakthroughs...but that too takes time (even in fiction the Earth doesn't get to its "Utopia" for 200-300 years after the technological breakthroughts happen). 22nd century Star Trek Earth actually seems more like us if we had the technology and have not quite gotten a handle on how society should use it. The halfway step so to speak.

However there is an unspoken downside to the Star Trek model (aside from the use of antimatter reactors that some people fear more so than nuclear energy)...the need to keep expanding. It isn't at a rapid pace mind you, but it has to keep up with the expansion of the human race as it breeds into the new territories. Much like Manifest Destiny I suppose...the need to expand in order to maintain the nation and the ecomony. Oddly I think that might be a reason the United States is getting into a worse shape...it was designed to keep expanding and it can't.

The Star Trek model also has oddities that are not explained. Take Captain Sisko's father. He runs a 20th century style restaurant in New Orleans. Makes one hell of a gumbo. He likes to use authentic ingrediants. As far as I can tell he is not paided for his services (since supposedly 24th century Earth doesn't use any form of currency). He runs what would be the today equivalent of a traditional 17th century establishment. The questions begin with where does he get his ingredients? Who fishes for clams from the Gulf of Mexico in the 24th century? How does he get people to cook to serve X number of people every day...or does he do limited reservations based on how much he knows he can do himself? How does he get wait staff (if any)...and players for the jazz? He supposedly does it because he enjoys cooking and the faces of his customers to a well cooked meal. To be fair, fresh made gumbo in a society that can literally make nearly any food out of component molecules and energy is a luxury and thus not something they will do all the time, so his client base might be relatively small, and his help might be people fasinated by the 20th century (like any reenactors or similar groups today who have hobbies involving other time periods.)
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai! Signature by ganbaru
Rena's Saimoe Take Home List 2014: Dairenji Suzuka.Misawa Maho.

Last edited by Ithekro; 2011-01-29 at 19:55.
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-29, 19:30   Link #23
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaden View Post
Yours is a good arguement Gundamfan, and presented in a fairly badass manner. That is a lot of material and I've just gotten through reading the thread. I'd think you want some kind of responses for all that so I'll give you mine!
Thank you Jaden, you make a pretty darn good argument yourself if you don't mind me saying.

Quote:
"TZM and the Venus Project advocate utopian socialism"

With just the stuff those anons dug up and reading speeches between the lines, I don't think this is the case. How is Peter Joseph's full name relevant, or the fact that they have a source of income? I've heard the social security in the US isn't very good, so obviously they need some money to live?
The relevence is obvious.
There is no need to "read between the lines" of anything Peter says.
He's very clear in his intent.
All I've done is present where these ideas have come from prior to Zeitgeist and how they've performed when put into practice in past groups that have attempted these kinds of Utopian systems.

The individuals who you refer to in the pejorative "anons" clearly showed in their youtube videos the relaitionship in behaviour between how Zeitgeist presents itself and what Doctor Robert Jay Lifton's research shows about cults and how they operate.

The anonymous author of those videos is correct in his/her analysis.
Zeitgeist does conform to Lifton's criteria for a cult.
The character or intentions of the uploading author is immaterial.
What matters is the information presented and how it relates to Zeitgeist.

I added Peter's full name so that people may google it and find more information for themselves, that was a curtesy to all of you here and has no other meaning as far as I'm concerned.

The fact that these people are trying to profit off of a movement that claims to be against profiteering is again very obvious.
That's called hypocrisy, and shows a "do as I say, not as I do" mentality in the people in charge of this movement.

As for Social Security, I fail to see how that's relevent to this discussion.
However, if the US government hadn't plundered the Social Security Accounts that were supposed to be set aside for Americans, then it wouldn't be going bust right now.
This is a prime example of a socialistic government program in the US being plundered by the secretariat/politicians and further evidence why socialism itself has already failed in Western and Orthodox civilizations.
The Eastern/Asian civilizations seem to be moving towards corporatism from socialism thus they will prolong their eventual collapse as well IMHO...but I digress, let's get back to the subject matter.

Quote:
about the classical contradiction:

When Peter called the NWO shouters names, that's in reference to the comicbook version of the story. Where the men behind the curtain are the anti-christ and the embodiment of all evil in the universe, and their plan is to kill off most people to install their new world order. This is the "misinterpretation of the NWO" as Peter called it. There exists a really vocal minority believing in such things, who see Peter as their agent and keep spamming him with emails. Also there's the comical exchange between Peter and Alex Jones about this which gained meme-like popularity and is still fresh in the memories of many people. That's why I think the "NWO" here refers to this.
Yes I got that, but the fact of the matter is, Peter is no different than Alex Jones.
Jones is pushing his Christian agenda, which mixes truth with half-truths and is an outgrowth of the so called Patriot Movement of the 1990s.
It is a fact that the CFR, Builderbergers, Trilateral Commission, and other Round Table groups have been pushing the world towards a New Economic World Order.
What is not true (that can be proven anyway) is when Jones starts ranting about these globalists planning to kill 5.5 billion people for some Lilith cult in Georga as part of a Satanic/Illuministic NWO.

Peter, in the same vein, is pushing his Utopian Socialist version of Oligarchical Collectivism, by mixing truths with half-truths and is an outgrowth of the Venus Project which itself is an extension of the Leftist movements of the 1960s.
Peter is trying to convince his followers that if we don't give up all our rights, money, and property to a new collectivist world system (supposedly controlled by machines) then the world will end in total destruction.

Both men are propagandists in their own right, and we need to weed through what is fact and fiction, but must always be on guard against the "solutions" put forward by people like this.

Quote:
The other version that Peter admits to, the economic new world order, would refer to just the universal spread of the modern banking institutions that, in a way, possess more power than goverments. I agree he should just stop talking about the NWO because it's confusing.
That is the "true" New World Order and can be proven quite easily.
The "Money is Debt" videos posted by both myself (in its 5 parts so people could watch it at their leisure) and Sugetsu show this clearly, and the information is accurate to the best of my knowledge.
However, this is not a conspiracy, nor a theory.
The governments of the world and the international banks have been doing this out in the open for many years.

The reason I take issue with what Peter did say in that interview is because he was making a blanket statement about anyone who believes in the concept of a world wide governmental system being a threat as it was proposed in H.G. Wells' book The New World Order.
While I would like to see a world government, I am very critical of all of the corporatist and socialistic proposals for such a governing body.

The League of Nations was a failure, the UN IS a failure [and is the whipping boy of international banking interests], and methinks the only actual international system that will work is one that transends the current crop of socialistic/collectivist and corporatist systems.
The best "ism" or "ology" I've seen in all that I've read or seen with regard to this is the Classical Liberal model.
That model is at least realistic and a good prototype from which to start.
The retrogressive return to Utopian Socialism of Henri de Rouvroy as put forth by Zeitgeist is a return to the failed policies of the past.
Socialism is not the future now, it was when Marx wrote the Manifesto in 1840, but those days are long since past.
In short, all forms of socialism are obsolete, and thus Zeitgeist's appeal to ignorance in saying that technology will lead the way to a collectivist system is nonsense.
Technology (particularly in the Industrial Revolution) is why Socialism failed in the first place, so how is a technological society supposed to become Socialist if industry and technology are the bane of collectivistism.
Just like in both George Orwell's 1984 and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World a small self-appointed elite rule over the masses.
It is foolish to assume that if Zeitgeist came to fruition there would be no Oligarchical ruling class.

Quote:
about the Venus Project vision being marxist and mirroring H.G. Wells' vision:

Officially their proposed model for goverment is global central planning, ran by algorithms free of any subjectivity. It's different from any past goverment model because it's a global system, doesn't involve people making opinionated descisions, is resource-based, doesn't involve currency, has a huge reduction in laws and civilian duties.
No, it's not different.
Central planning is the cornerstone of all Socialist movements.
It doesn't matter if a machine is supposed to control it.
Humans still have to maintain, program, and service the machines.
Read The Machine Stops by E.M. Foester (written in 1909) if you want to see just how old these ideas are.
The story shows a Zeitgeist-esque society and what happens to it.
Zeitgeist IS NOT A NEW IDEA, I would appreciate it if Zeitgeisters would please stop saying it is.
It's insulting to me since I have a firm and complete understanding of socialism in nearly all of its forms and tributaries.

Quote:
Of course, it's still science fiction and therein lies the problem. Are such algorithms even possible to make? How would they account for human values besides survival? Wouldn't the engineers of the system install subjectiveness with them? After all, machines can only do what we can, just more efficiently. Wouldn't the engineers of the system become a sort of technocracy? Even if not, what kind of leadership will we have before such a system is installed?

So this begs the question: Does the Venus Project and Zeitgeist Movement really believe in such possibilities? Can their model be refined to the point where it's actually applicable? Isn't this just sugarcoating to bring about some traditional totalitarian regime that deep in their hearts, they know it's going to be? Gundamfan made a point that this may be the case, but I still hope not.

After all there's no proof. It's always easier to hate and destroy, than to create. You could assert all kinds of slander about the people advocating specie money as well. I think it's actually a good idea, but aren't those people just plotting to raise the value of gold or something?
Excellent questions.
A few others I'll add are:
Are Peter Joseph and Jacque Fresco even telling the truth?
How can they back up such outrageous claims of a machine-guided society without providing substantial proof of the feasibility of such a plan?
Why are they calling for action now when the technology does not exist to creatue this Utopian Socialist system?

As for specie money, I'd like to add that the probability of groups out there plotting to increase their wealth off of a specie money system is most likely very high.
However, that said, I'll bet they're are an equal number drooling over the possibility of becomming powerful off of Zeitgeist.
__________________

Last edited by GundamFan0083; 2011-01-29 at 20:21.
GundamFan0083 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-29, 22:42   Link #24
Sugetsu
Kurumada's lost child
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356 View Post
The problem is you don't just need advanced technology, you need a post scarcity society. Meaning you need resources in quantities that are essentially infinite on the scale you're working on (not necessarily actually infinite), and a way to convert them into useful form in a manor that doesn't add cost. Star Trek does this with fusion power, replicators in every home, and transporters so you can quickly and efficiently get whatever you can't replicate. As I pointed out before, even then humans are still the same bastards we are today when they're thrown out of their comfort zone.

Apart from fusion power, there are laws of physics making the rest not quite impossible, but cost prohibitive if you aren't a k3 civilization. Maybe in the distant future it'll be possible, but not within our lifetimes. Technology is advancing quickly, but there haven't been many breakthroughs in fields such as mining that will give us the raw materials to build a post scarcity society. To even think about it we need well established, automated asteroid mining combined with automated processing of the mined materials and automated production of goods. The first one is the key, because we simply can't extract enough resources from the Earth to support it without turning the planet into a giant strip mine.
I hate to say this, but did you even watch the movie?

The first thing that happens under a RBE is to survey the earth's resources. Then you add all the data to a global database which then sets a priority on the distribution of resources based on their availability. Houses, clothing and other essentials of living are given the highest priority.

The system won't encourage mass consumerism because it will design all products with peak efficiency in mind. Meaning the system will do away with cyclical consumption by making all products build to last with the best quality materials available. It will also design all products to have the best technology available of the time, they will also have upgradeable capabilities if they are electronics so that they can keep up with advances in technology.

Utilizing automatic machines for building construction will greatly reduce waste, since 40% of all world's materials is wasted on construction alone.

This is a completely different approach to how resources are used. It takes into account that this world has finite resources and it is designed to use them in the most sustainable manner known to science. This practices will eventually lead to a global surplus due to the smart management of the earth's resources.
Sugetsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-29, 23:41   Link #25
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
So, the system will remove any semblance of personal freedom or choice, yes?

Er... yeahno.
__________________
synaesthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-29, 23:53   Link #26
defrule
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
It's the circle of life~~~
defrule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-30, 01:17   Link #27
Sugetsu
Kurumada's lost child
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
So, the system will remove any semblance of personal freedom or choice, yes?

Er... yeahno.
What are you talking about? Do you see any problem with machines building cars in Japan? Whats the problem of having a computer calculating how much silver, gold, carbon, water and other resources there are in the planet and then distribute them smartly by increasing productivity and reducing waste? How does that takes away your freedom?

PS. By the way you currently have no freedom. Thats what they want you to believe. None of us are free, we are all slaves to the monetary system and your every day choices are influenced by the media.
Sugetsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-30, 01:59   Link #28
Ithekro
Warning
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
That arguement suggest that one cannot take away freedoms if you don't have any to start with.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai! Signature by ganbaru
Rena's Saimoe Take Home List 2014: Dairenji Suzuka.Misawa Maho.
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-30, 02:19   Link #29
Sugetsu
Kurumada's lost child
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
No, what i suggest is that this current system lives under the illusion of freedom but real freedom is the capacity to do without the influence of external influences. The society in the Venus project will be more "free" than this current one due to the fact that the urge to buy and consume will be lifted leaving people to think for themselves for the first time in history, but would still fall short of achieving real freedom, which is the ability to free one's self from becoming attached to the external world. To achieve such a type of freedom requires that we devote time to study ourselves, which by the way, will be much easier to accomplish under a RBE than the monetary system.

In any case, what synaesthetic asked has nothing to do with freedom in the first place.
Sugetsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-30, 02:36   Link #30
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
I think you misinterpret what I'm saying.

In this "horrible, awful, totally not free world ruled by amoral sociopathic corporate overlords" I have:

The freedom to buy a Samsung, or an LG, or an HTC smartphone. Or maybe Apple (... well, probably not!) I can choose Android or Windows Phone 7, and maybe if Nokia gets their shit together, MeeGo. I have the freedom to buy a Gateway or ASUS laptop. I can choose from over a dozen different manufacturers parts to put together my own desktop. I have the freedom to pick NVIDIA or AMD when I want to bump my GPU up. I can choose to pay Microsoft for Windows, or download a Linux ISO from the Internet for free. Or I could even hack OSX onto my machine!

I can choose to go eat at an Italian restaurant, or maybe a Japanese, French or Indian place. I can decide to stay at home and cook myself instead. I can go to the mall and buy a new miniskirt or pair of jeans, maybe some boots, a belt, some earrings? Then I can go to Jupiter and have a pint of Red Spot.

Or I can go buy something totally different!

Conversely, in your Roddenberry wank-material fantasy world, we have:

A resource allocation center.

Do you understand what I'm saying now?
__________________
synaesthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-30, 02:43   Link #31
MeoTwister5
Komrades of Kitamura Kou
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Where I can learn to be lonely.
Age: 29
I think it's almost strangely coincidental that Fractale, currently airing now, is driven on themes very much similar to this current argument, and is written by a PhD lecturer whose writings are primarily about attempting the deconstruction of established and idealized social norms and systems.
MeoTwister5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-30, 03:00   Link #32
Jaden
Witch of Betrayal
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Age: 26
I must say I do enjoy the shopping experience myself. Rather than reading a book in a library, eating at a school cafeteria, and borrowing a movie from a friend...doing work to charge up my philosopher's stone that is money, then using that to eat out and conjure goods from a near infinite selection is pleasurable. The quality of service you get is much better, and the sensation of having earned those things is very nice.

But I don't think people would be unhappy or more restricted if they didn't have that. It's only important because of cultural values. Objectively looking, the freedom of shopping is just a gimmic, another kind of culture could bring the same fulfillment.
__________________
Jaden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-30, 03:04   Link #33
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
It's not the freedom of shopping, it's the freedom to have options.

In a communist society such as ZM, you would have one and only one option, dispensed to you at the resource allocation center.

I'm going to bow out of this because it looks to be going the same exact direction the last thread went... though I am quite pleased you answered my points instead of merely sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
__________________
synaesthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-30, 05:33   Link #34
Solace
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
It's not the freedom of shopping, it's the freedom to have options.
Most options are illusions of branding. Branding doesn't have to go away, in the design sense. The guts of Windows, or OSX, or Linux aren't as important to most consumers as the look and feel, but if you could design your OS to look and feel the way you felt like it wouldn't you?

One of the frustrating things about choice is the limitations of it. For example I love Nintendo games. Mario, Zelda, Metroid...all fun as heck to play. On the other hand I hate Nintendo consoles. Why? Because the third party support is awful. In order to get the third party support and the Nintendo games I have to have two consoles. Ouch, my wallet. On the other hand if I had one console that played any game, I'd have a PC. Zing! Er, well you get what I mean.

I don't see anyone in the VP advocating grey blob world. I don't see them saying "You'll only eat this type of food", or "You can only use this type of phone", or "You can only where these kind of clothes", etc. What I do see them advocating is offering more or less of something based on actual supply and demand. Meaning your shopping centers will be less crowded with stuff you don't care about and more stuff you do. Upgrading to the latest trends and fashions won't break the bank since you can just walk in and get it, recycling the old one if you had no further use for it.

Sure sure, all Sci-fi and such, but in a way the doors could be opened up to even more variety and choice. The internet is a good example of what happens when you open up creativity to everyone and share it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356
cost prohibitive
I honestly do not believe that even with today's technology there is an actual scarcity of basic necessities. We could easily feed, clothe, shelter, and provide (at the least) basic medical care for everyone on the planet with no actual strain. It's a matter of putting our minds to it. Costs are what keep people from affording places to live, or putting food in their stomachs, or keeping clothes on their back, or going to the doctor when they're sick. Costs are why we spend more money on military and defense than on anything of actual benefit to human well being.

And I won't argue that military spending has had some positive results, however many, if not all, of those breakthroughs could have easily come from non-military projects as well.

Yes, there are some dwindling resources. Oil, for one. Some precious minerals are more difficult to find. Trees and topsoil thanks to deforestation and erosion. However these are surmountable issues, and in fact the world's ecosystem provides an abundance of potential in regards to energy and production. There's plenty of fresh water, if we'd stop polluting it and recycled it properly. There's plenty of energy if we'd get off the oil and truly invest in other alternatives. We're also getting better at synthesizing and creating materials.

However costs and profits dictate things today. We've known for decades that we couldn't live off of oil forever, but we're still struggling to get off of it. Not because there simply isn't any other choice, but because staying with oil and not spending as much on alternatives is more profitable. Society doesn't jump on the alternatives because they are cost prohibitive. 40,000 for a Chevy Volt? That's way out of most people's price range. Retrofitting your house with solar panels? Very costly. No matter how much the cost reductions are in the long run, it's difficult to get behind something when the entry barrier is so expensive. This in turn stifles innovation when things are priced out of the average persons ability to afford it.

To be honest, if it wasn't for early adopters (people with lots of credit or deep wallets and lots of passion) I wonder if some of the things we enjoy today would even exist for the mass market.
__________________
Solace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-30, 12:30   Link #35
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
Ooh good arguments. About time someone answered my points.

Humans are naturally lazy. I don't see any possibility of creating competing products without a strong reason to do so (a profit motive). So ultimately, unless the ZM government (and there will be a government regardless of what the fanatics say) force diversity through rule of law, there will eventually only be one option.

That leaves us with a monopoly, and natural human laziness comes into play again. What motivation would the workers have to create a quality product if they weren't being compensated for their effort? Without competition, what reason would the manufacturer have to advance, to progress? They're already in the winning position. Why should they bother expending energy they don't have to?

That's why this system (and all collectivism) is inherently broken; it tries to go against the natural tendencies of life rather than working with them. All life is inherently lazy--not just humans! No animal or plant will expend energy unless it has to.
__________________
synaesthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-30, 13:11   Link #36
Sugetsu
Kurumada's lost child
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
I have explained the very same points as solace back when the venus project thread was active countless times! You were participating in that conversation as well but you fought me tooth and nail every step of the way. So why do you agree with the very same points now that they come from someone else? This is actually very concerning to me because I got the feeling it is the same with other people.

In regards to this system creating incentive and the RBE promoting laziness I think you got it backwards. This system promotes laziness because we are forced to work for money regardless of what our original dreams an aspirations were when we were growing up. Some people are very lucky to be able to work on what they love and earn a living at the same time, but most individuals have to do away with their dreams and "be real" in order to provide for their families. Picture the fat guy laying in the couch watching TV... What do you think causes him to be lazy? It is a rhetorical question by the way. In a BRE economy mundane and repetitive jobs, that can be easily automatized and waste human potential, will be performed by machines leaving humans to pursue their personal goals in life.

What you perceive to be natural is only a construct of the system. You haven't contemplated other alternatives which is why you think that the RBE will go against "human nature".

PS. Allow me to reinforce my point about incentive by referring the to the movie itself. Please Skip to 2:05:00 this will explain my point even further.

Last edited by Sugetsu; 2011-01-30 at 13:23.
Sugetsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-30, 13:49   Link #37
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugetsu View Post
I have explained the very same points as solace back when the venus project thread was active countless times! You were participating in that conversation as well but you fought me tooth and nail every step of the way. So why do you agree with the very same points now that they come from someone else? This is actually very concerning to me because I got the feeling it is the same with other people.

In regards to this system creating incentive and the RBE promoting laziness I think you got it backwards. This system promotes laziness because we are forced to work for money regardless of what our original dreams an aspirations were when we were growing up. Some people are very lucky to be able to work on what they love and earn a living at the same time, but most individuals have to do away with their dreams and "be real" in order to provide for their families. Picture the fat guy laying in the couch watching TV... What do you think causes him to be lazy? It is a rhetorical question by the way. In a BRE economy mundane and repetitive jobs, that can be easily automatized and waste human potential, will be performed by machines leaving humans to pursue their personal goals in life.
The empty six pack of beer next to him.

You're talking nonsense Sugetsu.
What none of your ilk seem to take into consideration is the possibility that Peter and Jacque aren't being honest with you.
You don't know these men personally, and they've done nothing to prove the sincerity of their claims.

In fact, they've done the oppposite.
At the Zeitgeist forum, anyone who questions the Zeitgeist movement is banned.
This movement has shown itself to be very thin skinned when someone gives a proper critique of it.
That shows a weakness in the strength of the ideology and a fear of exposure.

synaesthetic, Kumai, and Ithekro are correct when they say the Zeitgeist system is pure Star Trek fantasy.

Here's why.
For Zeitgeist to work there have to be machines which do all of the menial labor.
Humans will be free to pursue whatever aspirations they choose.
As synaesthetic pointed out, humans are inherently lazy and thus they will pursue leisure type pursuits.
Industrial and technological advancement will slow as very few individuals will be willing to invest the time in such pursuits.
After all, if you can be a painter a poet or a chef, why bother with the years of hard work required for engineering, or bioscience, or computer engineering?
That's not to say there won't be some who do pursue it, I'm sure there would be, but (like in the Soviet Union) they will not have the drive to succeed since none of their accomplishments will be theirs.
They will belong to the collective.
You see Sugetsu (and this is to all of you Zeitgeisters), the system being proposed by this film is counterproductive in the same exact way that Henri de Rouvroy's Saint-Simonism was.
Thus, the very technology and industrial requirements to maintain the Zeitgeist society will atrophy and the system will collapse as in The Machine Stops,
The world that Peter Joseph and Jacque Fresco are proposing sounds like a sugar-coated verson of every Sci-Fi dystopia I've ever read about.
From Metropolis onward.

In short, one man's Utopia is another man's hell.
When I see people like you Sugetsu telling us that "oh you'll get used to the new society" I'm always reminded of what the German Nationalist Socialists said to the Jewish people when they shipped them off to the death camps: "We're sending you to a better place."

With that I have a very difficult question for you Sugetsu.
What are you going to do about the rebels and dissidents that will surely resist this society with every ounce of their being?
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-30, 15:05   Link #38
Ithekro
Warning
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
I would imagine more protest from the conservative elements of society and at least most monotheistic religions (at least the more stuctured of them that have rules in place for things as I would imagine there will eventually be a conflict of interests on the regulation of human life).
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai! Signature by ganbaru
Rena's Saimoe Take Home List 2014: Dairenji Suzuka.Misawa Maho.
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-30, 15:56   Link #39
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
The whole thing about that, Itherko, sort of puts me in a sociopolitical quandary.

A lot of my views are conservative, while a lot of them are very liberal. You all probably know I'm very outspokenly against gun control (a typical conservative viewpoint) while at the same time I champion gay rights (typical liberal viewpoint), and then I also think the government should have nothing to do with marriage at all because it's discriminatory to single people (a more anarchist/libertarian viewpoint). I think religion (or any system of powerful belief and indoctrination) is inherently bad for humanity and hurts us as a species (another libertarian viewpoint).

I'm this way throughout my entire social, political and economic views. It's hard for me to find others with common ground.
__________________
synaesthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-30, 16:59   Link #40
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
The whole thing about that, Itherko, sort of puts me in a sociopolitical quandary.

A lot of my views are conservative, while a lot of them are very liberal. You all probably know I'm very outspokenly against gun control (a typical conservative viewpoint) while at the same time I champion gay rights (typical liberal viewpoint), and then I also think the government should have nothing to do with marriage at all because it's discriminatory to single people (a more anarchist/libertarian viewpoint). I think religion (or any system of powerful belief and indoctrination) is inherently bad for humanity and hurts us as a species (another libertarian viewpoint).

I'm this way throughout my entire social, political and economic views. It's hard for me to find others with common ground.
You just described my viewpoints on those issues too. Not everyone is so easy to categorize, though that's how people are made out to be in casual conversation, the media, etc... 'Red' or 'blue' are both the same crooks most of the time anyways.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
zeitgeist

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 19:42.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.