ZEITGEIST: Moving Forward - General

Why do people vote the video dumb? really? It is clearly a thought-triggering documentary, if you have not thought about the issues yet. I think Hostel summarized it well: [QUOTE=Hostel;27724228] What I've collected from watching the video: 1. Earth's resources are finite. (Propoganda?) 2. Previous economic systems were proposed and established without 1. considered. 3. Our systems lack conservation of resources. We use them faster than some can be replaced. 4. Violence, starvation, and other crimes are the result of poor living conditions or child abuse, or both. Also, you have a neuro-scientist from Standford University, pretty reputable, explainable a lot of this. If I can't give some amount of credit to what he knows, this world can seriously not be trusted. That fact that a resource-based economy does not have a monetary system kinda breaks it away from every system that has existed.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Sector 7;27888975]selfishness evolves naturally in every system with life and it is automatically successful because of it. In a system populated only by selfless humans, the selfish ones are going to wield the most power. don't believe everything you see on the internet. Consider, for a moment, who exactly is being brainwashed - you're making a pretty giant assumption based on information provided by just a single video.[/QUOTE] nice bullshit. none of that is fact, your just pulling cynical nonsense out of your ass. it really shows that you havnt even watched the video, its ridiculous, and your not worth anyone here's time. in the system, the most selfish anyone could get would be the people who spend their lives working to further their research. if no concept of ownership exists, selfishness becomes positive, driving people to be better, be more admired for their work, be more admired in general. as said by some guy "wanting to protect the environment is a very selfish thing" . and honestly, i wouldn't mind that. at worst people would steal someones sense of admiration for submitting someone else's work, but thats the worst it would ever get. watch the fucking video already, and think of a world governed by scientific method, not outdated politics.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;27898534]and think of a world governed by scientific method, not outdated politics.[/QUOTE] I was under the impression this science fiction fantasy land wasn't supposed to be governed at all.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;27908710]I was under the impression this science fiction fantasy land wasn't supposed to be governed at all.[/QUOTE] It's not a perfect system. As technology and people change, the system should as well. There are going to be battles, law breakers, etc. who will need to be controlled. People aren't going to suddenly drop their prejudices. Also, I think that one problem this movement is going to face, is population control laws. There are only so many people the Earth can sustain and some people are viciously against such a thing.

[QUOTE=Rubs10;27909027]It's not a perfect system.[/QUOTE] that's not what I keep hearing :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Mattk50;27898534]watch the fucking video already[/QUOTE] Read the entire thread. Thoroughly. [editline]7th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Rubs10;27909027]It's not a perfect system. As technology and people change, the system should as well. There are going to be battles, law breakers, etc. who will need to be controlled. People aren't going to suddenly drop their prejudices. Also, I think that one problem this movement is going to face, is population control laws. There are only so many people the Earth can sustain and some people are viciously against such a thing.[/QUOTE] Population control occurs naturally. We're witnessing the beginning of the effects now, with the food riots and such. An environment that cannot support a population will result in a reduction of said population. Overall, the Zeitgeist movement is trying to enforce an artificial system instead of embracing and working [i]with[/i] natural forces. The technologies they point to might be sustainable, but the systems they propose are not. Study more economic and social history and you'll come to understand. The ZM has a big hole in the middle of their ideas that amount to saying "magic happens here". Read the entire thread carefully.

[QUOTE=miscreanity;27910439]Overall, the Zeitgeist movement is trying to enforce an artificial system instead of embracing and working [i]with[/i] natural forces. The technologies they point to might be sustainable, but the systems they propose are not. Study more economic and social history and you'll come to understand.[/QUOTE] this is probably the best summary of the core argument against the movement.

[QUOTE=miscreanity;27910439]Read the entire thread. Thoroughly. [editline]7th February 2011[/editline] Population control occurs naturally. We're witnessing the beginning of the effects now, with the food riots and such. An environment that cannot support a population will result in a reduction of said population. Overall, the Zeitgeist movement is trying to enforce an artificial system instead of embracing and working [i]with[/i] natural forces. The technologies they point to might be sustainable, but the systems they propose are not. Study more economic and social history and you'll come to understand. The ZM has a big hole in the middle of their ideas that amount to saying "magic happens here". Read the entire thread carefully.[/QUOTE] I don't entirely understand. What's artificial about this and what's natural about the current system?

[QUOTE=miscreanity;27910439]Read the entire thread. Thoroughly. [editline]7th February 2011[/editline] Population control occurs naturally. We're witnessing the beginning of the effects now, with the food riots and such. An environment that cannot support a population will result in a reduction of said population. Overall, the Zeitgeist movement is trying to enforce an artificial system instead of embracing and working [i]with[/i] natural forces. The technologies they point to might be sustainable, but the systems they propose are not. Study more economic and social history and you'll come to understand. The ZM has a big hole in the middle of their ideas that amount to saying "magic happens here". Read the entire thread carefully.[/QUOTE] artificial system? and what happens now isnt artificial? thats funny. the magic already exists in the form of technology, i dont see what is so "magical" about it. science is the most natural thing to form a system around. economic and social history dont prove anything about the future (i had typed irrelevant here, but thats not true either), the state of a social structure is completely dependent on what area and social class different people grew up in. this is seen all across the US. I think the only opposition that's valid is that humans should be left to their stew, and that natural selection will run its course, which is what you hinted at in your first paragraph. i think this is a very primitive way to live, and i also think we can transcend our roots and one day even make it to a class 1 civilization. [editline]7th February 2011[/editline] oh, if that hole your referring to is the transition between our current state and the suggested one in the video, then i agree. there is a hole. i thought that was glaringly obvious. i also thought it was glaringly obvious that if something like this was easy enough for them to have a perfect plan for transition, it would have been done already. they didnt list any possible transition methods because they are either still thinking, have some ideas but are being reserved, or have no ideas on the topic. i highly doubt they put all that thought into it without putting any thought into this. in any case, i think the change will be similar to how democracy changed the world. one country (or independent really) has to be the catalyst, then other countries will have to follow. you pointed out many holes in the video earlier, and yet you failed to realize that its a 3 hour generalization, and going into depth on all fronts would mean they would have to put out a much larger video. you cant judge arithmetic as algebra, for instance.

you must be right, otherwise you wouldn't be rating people you're debating with dumb. [quote]they didnt list any possible transition methods because they are either still thinking, have some ideas but are being reserved, or have no ideas on the topic.[/quote] alright, let me know when they find out how to convince every world government to give up it's power and start building robot infrastructures to replace every single industry without the use of money. I'll be first in line for my private jet. jesus christ, are you people even listening to yourselves? this shit is ridiculous

[QUOTE=Rubs10;27913098]I don't entirely understand. What's artificial about this and what's natural about the current system?[/QUOTE] Good question. The current system defies natural order by distorting what amount to pain and pleasure responses in regard to financial activities (ie. people can spend as much as they want without consequence). The bottom of the social order is lower than what government provides through welfare programs that are easily abused, which leads to an increasing percentage of the population effectively becoming parasitic by relying on government handouts. During the past few years, we've seen the largest and most integral components of economies (businesses) becoming parasitic. All of this is the result of defying the core tenet of supply and demand, wherein an excess of production was seized upon in an opportunistic manner to concentrate power and wealth for the small segment of the population capable of understanding how to disrupt the natural system. This was most easily done by usurping the power of centralized government, a course of action executed primarily by banking institutions which held a large portion of the population's wealth. The Zeitgeist movement proposes putting governing powers in the hands (appendages?) of a computerized system. However, there is also the notion that it would need to be maintained by a small core of the population. This again creates a centralization of potential power which has a 'currency' in the form of regional or global resource allocation and processing. The similarities to the progression of centralized power throughout history is too similar - mystical and religious leadership reigned for thousands of years and morphed into modern financial institutions over the past several hundred. Zeitgeist simply shifts financial authority to technocratic authority without providing any form of check or balance. Naturally-occurring resource-based systems are self-correcting and self-limiting. They eventually supersede any contrived governmental systems, as has been shown historically. Nothing is 'perfect', since entropy forces dynamic progression, but there is an effectively dynamic system that works with natural processes instead of against them. That system is known as anarchy, and it may be entirely different than what you might think of upon hearing that term. It does not suggest chaos and every-man-for-himself. Humans naturally gravitate toward collaborative communities and seek to further their productive capacities through cooperation, though not always in a conscious effort. A system of anarchy is more of an observation of how people operate in a system based on their own recognizance rather than being under the auspices of a controlling/governing body. As mentioned earlier in this thread, Somalia has been an amazing example of an anarchic society thriving in highly adverse situations. While we may still look at the nation as below developed world living standards, the country has gone from a war-torn wasteland to a productive and growing large-scale community through the efforts of people acting in their own interest and collaborating with each other. This is completely anathema to what the majority of people expected would happen, but is entirely understandable from the perspective that government causes problems instead of correcting them. If you're familiar with them, you could equate the open source method of software development with anarchy and the closed, proprietary method with government. They both have their place, but on different types and scales of project magnitude. Open source works best on massive projects that affect wide-ranging software and standards while proprietary projects fill niche needs and specialized purposes. By the above reasoning, society is currently backward and careening further along such an unsustainable path. If you're interested, there are numerous resources I can direct you toward. [QUOTE=Mattk50;27914681]artificial system? and what happens now isnt artificial? thats funny. the magic already exists in the form of technology, i dont see what is so "magical" about it. science is the most natural thing to form a system around. economic and social history dont prove anything about the future (i had typed irrelevant here, but thats not true either), the state of a social structure is completely dependent on what area and social class different people grew up in. this is seen all across the US. I think the only opposition that's valid is that humans should be left to their stew, and that natural selection will run its course, which is what you hinted at in your first paragraph. i think this is a very primitive way to live, and i also think we can transcend our roots and one day even make it to a class 1 civilization. [editline]7th February 2011[/editline] oh, if that hole your referring to is the transition between our current state and the suggested one in the video, then i agree. there is a hole. i thought that was glaringly obvious. i also thought it was glaringly obvious that if something like this was easy enough for them to have a perfect plan for transition, it would have been done already. they didnt list any possible transition methods because they are either still thinking, have some ideas but are being reserved, or have no ideas on the topic. i highly doubt they put all that thought into it without putting any thought into this. in any case, i think the change will be similar to how democracy changed the world. one country (or independent really) has to be the catalyst, then other countries will have to follow. you pointed out many holes in the video earlier, and yet you failed to realize that its a 3 hour generalization, and going into depth on all fronts would mean they would have to put out a much larger video. you cant judge arithmetic as algebra, for instance.[/QUOTE] You raise some good points. As mentioned above, the current systems have extensively usurped natural mechanisms. You are absolutely correct in noting that my reference to 'magic' is about the transition, particularly the social structure and intermediary technologies still necessary. From the rush to support the ZM, it seems that plenty of people don't see the shortcomings. The efforts made to propel the ZM and Venus Project seem to consist almost entirely of surreptitious 'social engineering' tactics. Thus, people following the movement will remain intellectually subservient and much less likely to think for themselves. If the movement is still thinking, has some ideas, or has no ideas, perhaps it would behoove them to look outside the insular and myopic view that's been cultivated. Democratic movements have existing examples to emulate. Anarchic movements draw from periods between governmental collapses as evidence of proven self-organizing and self-sustaining potential. Both offer clear systems of societal adaptation, though anarchy is more of an observation with synergistic elements. I agree, the change will definitely be on the level of that which democracy (and industrialization) impacted human reality. The difference is that I consider the spontaneously-forming communities (both online and offline) to be the progression instead of any particular country. There are many, and they have been growing for some time now. Places where government is weak, but civil structure still exists, will be where the sparks begin to catch. An individual doesn't need to understand all of math to comprehend the nature of mathematics itself. The phrase 'failed to realize' is an assumption. The matter still stands that the video offers few objective conclusions, yet pushes the viewer toward many highly directed and subjective conclusions. I view that as being counter-productive and subversive. If that's the way they want to start a new order, I fear for the people who join and are looking for a cure to the world's ills. Thanks, it's nice to have an alternate perspective to bounce off, as it helps to reinforce my own concepts or forces rethinking of aspects that might not be as solid as I thought. [QUOTE=Sector 7;27916531]I'll be first in line for my private jet.[/QUOTE] If you get a jet, I want an orbital platform! You can dock there. Best party place in the solar system - Deadmau5 spinning in 2015.

What about people who don't want to work and just become parasites of the system? It seems a lot more easily exploitable in a system like this.

[QUOTE=Rubs10;27921683]What about people who don't want to work and just become parasites of the system? It seems a lot more easily exploitable in a system like this.[/QUOTE] well... yes. Oh, wait, except once everyone is free from the crushing burden of an economy, everybody will become hard workers out of boredom.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;27923384]well... yes. Oh, wait, except once everyone is free from the crushing burden of an economy, everybody will become hard workers out of boredom.[/QUOTE] Bingo. While there is some truth to the fact that, if every form of labor were automated through computerization and robotics, basic needs of life would be taken care of. That does nothing to tackle issues of progressive biological diseases requiring scientific research which computer may or may not be able to figure out at that point. Also, what of human-machine hybridization? Cyborgs may well be a reality within the next few years, in a sense. What happens when man [i]is[/i] machine? Would humanity even have any purpose at that point and if so, would the majority choose hybridization? What of extra-planetary expansion? Future concepts that we have no awareness or comprehension of currently? Things change, so planning for a solid target is unrealistic.

[QUOTE=Rubs10;27921683]What about people who don't want to work and just become parasites of the system? It seems a lot more easily exploitable in a system like this.[/QUOTE] likely being completely stagnant would be seen as a mental condition and be encouraged to participate in the world. participation is a funny word though, considering most people wouldnt have to work and would have a massive amount of free time. if someone is just sitting on a couch all day staring out the window... yeah.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;27888975]selfishness evolves naturally in every system with life and it is automatically successful because of it. In a system populated only by selfless humans, the selfish ones are going to wield the most power. don't believe everything you see on the internet. Consider, for a moment, who exactly is being brainwashed - you're making a pretty giant assumption based on information provided by just a single video.[/QUOTE] Its like you ignored the movie and every post made so far.

[QUOTE=miscreanity;27924466]Bingo. While there is some truth to the fact that, if every form of labor were automated through computerization and robotics, basic needs of life would be taken care of. That does nothing to tackle issues of progressive biological diseases requiring scientific research which computer may or may not be able to figure out at that point. Also, what of human-machine hybridization? Cyborgs may well be a reality within the next few years, in a sense. What happens when man [i]is[/i] machine? Would humanity even have any purpose at that point and if so, would the majority choose hybridization? What of extra-planetary expansion? Future concepts that we have no awareness or comprehension of currently? Things change, so planning for a solid target is unrealistic.[/QUOTE] the cyborg issue reminds me of some of the dresden codak comics, where in hob humans end up just being a transitory species. its my opinion that if humans are to be transitory in the end, its no different than evolution. when you have a child, that child is more advanced than you. perhaps all of humanity could have the ultimate child. speculation though, and i assume everyone would have a choice whether to become cyborgs or not. the change would come naturally, opposition would probably be shot down by scientific method and the ideas of freedom the society i assume would be founded on. this does clash with the ideas that people with harmfull drug additions would probably be forced to undergo help, and opens room for people to weasle in agendas(if they exist, as i said i dont think there will be many). it all depends on the specific computer systems, and how they judge. once we can go inside the human brain and alter it, a massive mess arises that i dont even want to begin on. i retyped this paragraph several times then deleted it when i decided there was no answer.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;27923384] Oh, wait, except once everyone is free from the crushing burden of an economy, everybody will become hard workers out of boredom.[/QUOTE] Again. not everyone would but at least as much as there is volunteers now. Even though even that high of a percent is not needed. There are people that like science, there are people do it for fun. now imagine if all the science nerds (oh and with a culture that likes science this will rise) around the world got the ability to work together. Really if you look through history the best scientists didnt do what they did for money.

[QUOTE=miscreanity;27924466]That does nothing to tackle issues of progressive biological diseases requiring scientific research which computer may or may not be able to figure out at that point.[/QUOTE] not to mention industries which robots just aren't good at.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27925092]Again. not everyone would but at least as much as there is volunteers now. Even though even that high of a percent is not needed. There are people that like science, there are people do it for fun. now imagine if all the science nerds (oh and with a culture that likes science this will rise) around the world got the ability to work together. Really if you look through history the best scientists didnt do what they did for money.[/QUOTE] You keep bring up the statistic 25% of people volunteer. I'll let you keep that statistic, even though I'm sure a large portion of that is just so they get put something on their resume, or if it happens to be via their church group. Never the less, say tomorrow 75% of working individuals stopped working, or lost their jobs. Do you have any idea how fast the country would die? We are at like 9.8% or something unemployment now, and look where we are at, its a fucking disaster. (and its not like volunteering at a soup kitchen is going to advance technology lmfao) I'm a "computer science nerd" and I love it, however I wouldn't fucking bother getting up at 6 in the morning to go to work, when I could just simply sleep in at home and then go for a jog when I feel like it. And without any type of corporations and businesses there would be no hierarchy or structure. And without hierarchy and structure there is no way to organize and prioritize the flow of information. Listen, robotics, medicine, technology, and science are slowing becoming more and more popular. And in the future we will have a much more advanced and eco efficient society. However, this is only possible in a capitalistic society. If a company A wants to invest 10 billion dollars into a new type of LCD I believe they should be able to get as rich as they want off of their product. Because in a year or so company B will try to top their display and it goes on and on and on and on, and eventually we get some very nice gadgets. And this is the only true viable form of advancement, and this seriously has been the case for thousands of years. In ye olden days it was easier for individuals to invent and advance technology, today that is the complete opposite. It takes teams of thousands of people who get paid to work hard as shit in order to advance technology. This won't be possible when work is optional and 152 people out of 10thousand people decide to show up for work. Not to mention, why would any one want to go through like 8-10 years of med schooling just to volunteer. You wouldn't see 1/50th of students going all the way though med school if they weren't getting paid 6 figures. The place where you are flat out wrong is people will still work without motivation. You particularly might have some sort of interest of working despite being paid but you would be rare. The studies you post contradicted themselves, and in their experiments they even show how money IS indeed a motivational factor. Oh and this system won't work unless the entire world submits to it (not that it would work period). If the United States suddenly passed thousands of laws in favour of the zeitgiest movement our gdp would go to 0 and we would set the world record for the fastest first world country to turn into a third world country. And if the entire world did submit to this system, we would be taking shit countries including ones in central Africa who don't even know what a house is under our wing. Think about all the unskilled labor and more mouths to feed. The world wide standard of living would go bellow poverty level. Forget about fucking technology when you now have to feed and provide equal housing etc to the entire world. Even if you are dirt fucking poor in America and you make less than 20,000 USD a year which is bellow minimum wage, you STILL would be in the 11% WEALTHIEST PEOPLE ON EARTH. There are winners and losers in the world, and it sucks if you don't live in Europe, America, Australia, and parts of Asia. Equality on a world wide scale would never work. Thanks cya.

but everybody would be a millionaire and the culture would be different and everyone would get along because robots would take away all our worries cmon you didn't even watch the video

[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;27929671]You keep bring up the statistic 25% of people volunteer. I'll let you keep that statistic, even though I'm sure a large portion of that is just so they get put something on their resume, or if it happens to be via their church group. Never the less, say tomorrow 75% of working individuals stopped working, or lost their jobs. Do you have any idea how fast the country would die? We are at like 9.8% or something unemployment now, and look where we are at, its a fucking disaster. (and its not like volunteering at a soup kitchen is going to advance technology lmfao)[/quote] the "unemployment percentage" is completely irrelivent to the amount of people that need to be working to maintain a society. i dont think you even know the logic behind what your talking about. (lmfao XDDXXDDDDD). (also, there would be no soup kitchens. nobody is poor remember.) [quote] I'm a "computer science nerd" and I love it, however I wouldn't fucking bother getting up at 6 in the morning to go to work, when I could just simply sleep in at home and then go for a jog when I feel like it.[/quote] two things: no, you dont know that, and no, you dont know that about anyone else. also, congrats as being looked at as the dreg of society then. im sure you'd come around when people started to ignore your opinion in ever conversation. [quote]And without any type of corporations and businesses there would be no hierarchy or structure. And without hierarchy and structure there is no way to organize and prioritize the flow of information. [/quote] there isnt? really? hahahha, you havnt watched the video either have you. computer science nerd? not worthy of the title, your probably a skiddie. [quote]Listen, robotics, medicine, technology, and science are slowing becoming more and more popular. And in the future we will have a much more advanced and eco efficient society. However, this is only possible in a capitalistic society. If a company A wants to invest 10 billion dollars into a new type of LCD I believe they should be able to get as rich as they want off of their product. Because in a year or so company B will try to top their display and it goes on and on and on and on, and eventually we get some very nice gadgets. And this is the only true viable form of advancement, and this seriously has been the case for thousands of years. In ye olden days it was easier for individuals to invent and advance technology, today that is the complete opposite. It takes teams of thousands of people who get paid to work hard as shit in order to advance technology. This won't be possible when work is optional and 152 people out of 10thousand people decide to show up for work. [/quote] today those companies spent more on advertisement than product development. none of these points hold water. [quote]Not to mention, why would any one want to go through like 8-10 years of med schooling just to volunteer. You wouldn't see 1/50th of students going all the way though med school if they weren't getting paid 6 figures. The place where you are flat out wrong is people will still work without motivation. You particularly might have some sort of interest of working despite being paid but you would be rare. The studies you post contradicted themselves, and in their experiments they even show how money IS indeed a motivational factor.[/quote] money is a motivational factor only in physical tasks. all of these tasks can be done by robots. as for med schooling, something tells me we would get alot more doctors who actually care about helping people and not just money. its the market system, why fix your patients if you can only fix them slightly and make a bigger reward for it. again, this holds no water. you fail to understand the overarching principles. aka, there is no volunteering, and there are no figures. [quote] Oh and this system won't work unless the entire world submits to it (not that it would work period). If the United States suddenly passed thousands of laws in favour of the zeitgiest movement our gdp would go to 0 and we would set the world record for the fastest first world country to turn into a third world country. [/quote] you think the GDP matters? have you even watched the video? [quote] And if the entire world did submit to this system, we would be taking shit countries including ones in central Africa who don't even know what a house is under our wing. Think about all the unskilled labor and more mouths to feed. The world wide standard of living would go bellow poverty level. Forget about fucking technology when you now have to feed and provide equal housing etc to the entire world. [/quote] unskilled labor? mouths to feed? do you even... fuck no, your just an idiot. [quote]Even if you are dirt fucking poor in America and you make less than 20,000 USD a year which is bellow minimum wage, you STILL would be in the 11% WEALTHIEST PEOPLE ON EARTH. There are winners and losers in the world, and it sucks if you don't live in Europe, America, Australia, and parts of Asia. Equality on a world wide scale would never work. Thanks cya.[/QUOTE] "hi im a rich person all the poor people can go die sucks for them. equality wouldn't benefit me so im against it." there are plenty of valid arguments you could have put forth, none of these are one of them. good day, and get out.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;27930220]fuck no, your just an idiot.[/QUOTE] classic A small matter of curiosity, what's gonna happen once a practically unlimited amount of heroin and methamphetamine becomes widely available for free?

one question that has to do with the transition is how a society like this one would have relations with non-zeitgeist countries. i assume there would still have to be military and still have to be soldiers just to protect everyone inside from people trying to destroy it. such military would be defensive in purpose, and more volenteer scientists would be developing the best defensive systems such as long range THEL. automated factories could mas produce these. [editline]8th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Sector 7;27930232]classic A small matter of curiosity, what's gonna happen once a practically unlimited amount of heroin and methamphetamine becomes widely available for free?[/QUOTE] it would be out there, doesnt mean everyone would instantly become druggies. as said, people with addictions would be treated as people with diseases, not criminals. [editline]8th February 2011[/editline] actually now that i think of it, it probably wouldnt be out there. all the resources in the world would be being monitered, so i find it unlikely for large quantities of anything to be made common

I wouldn't say that third world workers would be the same as they are today. If there were a gradual transition, they would be trained and improved on a larger scale.

Lmfao you are twice as worse as piggy. You're pathetic, skiddy? What are you 12? And no I'm not rich, and I've done more for charity and more to society than you ever will. Do the world a favor and lynch yourself. You:"The strain and effects of a country with high unemployment won't exist if we pretend it doesn't exist" You're not as smart as you think you are by the way. And because companies spend money on advertising my points are invalid? What is this I don't even And my GDP point went over your head i see. You should re read. You don't even respond to my other points, which is pathetic. And you know what is more pathetic? Your attempt at spreading your seed.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;27930266]actually now that i think of it, it probably wouldnt be out there. all the resources in the world would be being monitered, so i find it unlikely for large quantities of anything to be made common[/QUOTE] ...so suddenly drugs have value, and then BAM you've got an economy and money.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;27930220]the "unemployment percentage" is completely irrelivent to the amount of people that need to be working to maintain a society. i dont think you even know the logic behind what your talking about. (lmfao XDDXXDDDDD). (also, there would be no soup kitchens. nobody is poor remember.)[/QUOTE] Unemployment matters in a highly specialized work ecosystem. There's only so much freeloading a system can handle before it collapses. [QUOTE]two things: no, you dont know that, and no, you dont know that about anyone else.[/QUOTE] While you're right about the latter part, do you claim to know what he thinks and would choose for himself? [QUOTE]today those companies spent more on advertisement than product development. none of these points hold water.[/QUOTE] Really? Where are the numbers? Empirical data and facts trump opinion, so until you can furnish a detailed, logical rationale and reliable data on your claims, there's no reason to take you seriously. [QUOTE]money is a motivational factor only in physical tasks. all of these tasks can be done by robots. as for med schooling, something tells me we would get alot more doctors who actually care about helping people and not just money. its the market system, why fix your patients if you can only fix them slightly and make a bigger reward for it. again, this holds no water. you fail to understand the overarching principles. aka, there is no volunteering, and there are no figures.[/QUOTE] How physical is call center outsourcing? How many doctors perform their task just for the love of it while experiencing increasing demands and decreasing support? A doctor is only a doctor until he starves to death. They're human, not robots. Even if they were, there's a limit to how much they can do in a given time period. Free markets are self-correcting. A doctor that only treats the symptoms, never correcting the cause, will eventually lose clients to those doctors who do treat causes. As his reputation weakens and turns negative, he will have to change his treatment methodology or risk losing his practice. Reputation is the greatest currency in a capitalist society, and money (a proxy for confidence and production or wealth) will flow to those with solid reputations. Case in point: AMD processors provided exceptional competition to Intel's during the late 1990s and early 2000s due to an ideal price/performance ratio. AMD offered a quality product at a reasonable price - the components outperformed Intel's at the same price level and were therefore viewed as a higher-value product. As Intel adjusted its designs to fall in line with consumer demands, Intel regained market share and AMD has become the underdog again. If market forces had not influenced Intel and the company had not recognized the demand shift, the company would not have adjusted its operations and would not be in a dominant position today. Apple during the late 1980s, '90s and early 2000s is a case of a company that nearly capitulated primarily because it defied market forces. Your views of markets show a distinct distortion that is common to a socialist-influenced perspective. Macroeconomics does not capture the behavior of individuals acting in their best interests based on particular financial conditions, yet the majority of economists today adhere to models and theories that are consistently proven erroneous time and again. [QUOTE]you think the GDP matters? have you even watched the video?[/QUOTE] GDP, or Gross Domestic Product, is essentially a tally of all items produced within a given economy. The 'resource-based economy' depicted in the video is effectively GDP on a global scale. One major difference is that Western economies include consumption (which is not production) in the GDP. Again, an understanding of GDP is a prerequisite to offering your opinion. [QUOTE]unskilled labor? mouths to feed? do you even... fuck no, your just an idiot.[/QUOTE] More opinion. Unless you clarify your intentions and provide data, your opinions remain opinions. [QUOTE]"hi im a rich person all the poor people can go die sucks for them. equality wouldn't benefit me so im against it." there are plenty of valid arguments you could have put forth, none of these are one of them. good day, and get out.[/QUOTE] Yours is the perspective instilled by demagogues, creating a sense of resentment between classes while reinforcing segmentation. The longer an individual maintains that mentality, the harder it becomes to attain wealth, resulting in a self-fulfilling wish that imprisons the poor. If you believe a lie, you live it. Recommended reading: [url]http://noblenomads.com/2010/12/01/ignorance-death/[/url]

[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;27929671]You keep bring up the statistic 25% of people volunteer. I'll let you keep that statistic, even though I'm sure a large portion of that is just so they get put something on their resume, or if it happens to be via their church group. Never the less, say tomorrow 75% of working individuals stopped working, or lost their jobs. Do you have any idea how fast the country would die? [/QUOTE] I explained this many times. most jobs would not be needed without money or could be replaced with machines. The only reason that the 9% unemployment thing effects us is because we have an economy thing going. [editline]8th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Sector 7;27938135]...so suddenly drugs have value, and then BAM you've got an economy and money.[/QUOTE] Yea and even drugs would be distributed but if you watched the film drug addiction would be lowered by a lot. This has even been shown in countries today that legalizing drugs dont do much for it and over time lowers the number of drug users.

drugs have value? so what are you going to buy drugs with? everyone already has everything they need, nobody owns anything. [editline]8th February 2011[/editline] most of this thread is just people who dont understand the concept, or people who understand parts and so insert those parts into modern day without thinking of the big picture. im growing tired of this.