ZEITGEIST: Moving Forward - General

seems my premonitions about the movie were pretty accurate. Thanks for saving me 3 hours.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;27725957]you thought the world ran on giggles and pixie dust.[/QUOTE] I lost it right there. [editline]29th January 2011[/editline] Before I crash, please take note of an alternative that is genuinely practical and really would be able to achieve the technological advances listed by Zeitgeist. [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1054521-6-Billion-Chimpanzees[/url]

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27726421][url]http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17&setLang=en-GB&Itemid=50[/url] go to what is the zeitgeist movement? and for the video go to 1:30:6 I could give better ones tomorrow when Im not so sleepy. so good night tell then oh technically the venus project would be a form of anarchism since there would be no one ruling anyone.[/QUOTE] How old are you?

Its an interesting concept but the whole "Strategic" part was a bit extreme.

The problem with ideas is that they don't always work in real life situations.

i believe that some people are not 100% with the idea like others, because they measure it against their own assumptions and prejudices. some of the points against it are valid against the perspective people are taking it from. From my perspective i believe it to be a completely feesible alternative to what we have today. and a point i wish people will take into consideration is that the idea presents the concept of every living person on the planet having their needs taken care of. this is something, of which im not aware of, has ever occured on the whole of the planet since we have decided to use technologies. the zeitgeist concept as i see it is a natural evolution of current technological ides.

[QUOTE=miscreanity;27726542]My estimates put things at at least 911 times worse than people think the situation really is. I spent the past few hours going through the video again to make a point-by-point assessment of the inconsistencies and brazen misinformation put forth in some sections. As a note, I don't see anything precluding the proposed system from succeeding, at first. However, it is capitalist in nature with a centralized governing entity that thereby gives it a socialist control system. They're trying to call a chicken a horse. A major danger is that a very small percentage of the population maintains the centralized control system and could easily abuse that access to create a potentially devastating oligarchic technocracy. The implications of that could be staggeringly worse than anything currently imaginable. Also, overuse of natural resources has occurred [I]many[/I] times throughout history. There is precedent. The only difference is that each time the magnitude grows. See [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed"]Jared Diamond's [I]Collapse[/I][/URL]. Businesses have incorporated all of the concepts suggested in the video. Some of these concepts have been around since [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer"]Sumerian[/URL] times. There is nothing original - these people are blowhards with a nice goal that's too late to help until the western world collapses and takes most of humanity with it. Hey, IBM has been ahead of the curve for ages. There are thousands more companies competing to succeed and thrive, developing ideas that are far more revolutionary than the ones espoused by the Zionist movement. Or was it Zeitgeist? [URL="http://www.facepunch.com/"]View YouTUBE video[/URL] [URL]http://youtube.com/watch?v=39jtNUGgmd4[/URL] Lastly for now, capitalism really describes a natural phenomenon more than it can be called a system in itself. It outlines a naturally self-correcting system (which also naturally enforces individual responsibility) which, when left to its own devices sans government interference, has benefited humanity during several brief stages of development. Whatever you want to call it, it has persevered for millennia and has almost universally been accompanied by gold as a currency basis (it hasn't always been available in certain regions, hence seashells and the like). Get ready for the analysis, due sometime later today.[/QUOTE] All the blind defenders of a unreasonable idea have left the thread. They might come back replying to this post about how they went to sleep or what ever, but they will still ignore this post, they will still bring up the same points of "watch the video watch the video did you even watch the video?". Everyone here would be better off just arguing with a wall. [QUOTE=Sector 7;27725957]Hypothetical time. Lets say you're a moneyless government. How do you build roads? You can't pay people to do it. You can't pay companies to build robots to do it. You couldn't pay people to fix those robots, anyway. You can't build your own robots because your government doesn't have any employees because everyone would rather be living a workless life of leisure. I suppose you could force people to build robots at gunpoint, but that might seem a little counter-productive. And lets say you solve that problem. Now what do you do when a capitalist nation starts to invade for monetary purposes? You don't have an army. You can't buy tanks. Nobody in your country is going to leave their problem-free lifestyles to get shot at in a ditch for free. If you did have tanks though, you'd have a fuckload of fuel for them at least, thanks to your highly efficient country. ...except you don't, because why would someone start a profitless oil refinery? And all the while, you have people murdering and assaulting one another, vandalizing property, and committing crimes for reasons other than poverty. You don't have a police force - but it's a moot point, because you don't have any jails anyway. Meanwhile, your country is dying of disease, because you don't have any doctors, because noone wants to go to med school for ten years just to be a good person. Even if they did, who's teaching them? Robots, again? And somehow, even if you did have doctors, where are they going to work? Oh right, those hospitals built with tax dol... oh wait. You don't have any tax dollars, because you thought the world ran on giggles and pixie dust.[/QUOTE] I used this same example months ago in a communist thread piggy was defending. He said the exact same thing he did here. Alas... [editline]29th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;27727837]How old are you?[/QUOTE] He is a 13-14 year old who never had a job in his life who [B]TRULY[/B] believes that everyone today gets up early in the morning to go to work [B]for fun[/B]. And [B]TRULY[/B] believes that people will still go to work even if they didn't get paid. If there was a communist system, the majority of people wouldn't be giving a shit. They would just be living a life of relaxation back at their government instilled standard issue apartment drinking their government standard issue carbonated fruit refreshments. I don't have to get up in the morning to construct buildings. ROBOTS WILL DO IT. We don't need to create robots, BECAUSE ROBOTS WILL BUILD OTHER ROBOTS. Lets just hope we have a robot that can do a kidney transplant, because I doubt any doctors will be willing to go to work for fun. Yet alone surgeons and nurses. Or even scruffy the janitor that keeps the hospital clean, he for sure wouldn't be there.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;27727837]How old are you?[/QUOTE] What matters is that he (or she) is making an effort to contribute to the debate.

Plus no crime guys. Because we all know that if there isn't money, there isn't any reason to rob each other! Its not like people won't be fucking starving on the streets because the food producers decided to let the non existent robots make the food. [editline]29th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=miscreanity;27730364]What matters is that he (or she) is making an effort to contribute to the debate.[/QUOTE] Debate which consists of "watch the video watch the video you don't even understand the movement if you didnt watch the video you don't even know what youre talking about" and when he does contribute to discussion, all I see is posts that prove he knows nothing of modern day society or economy. Just poop pouring from the mouth.

[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;27730365]Plus no crime guys. Because we all know that if there isn't money, there isn't any reason to rob each other! Its not like people won't be fucking starving on the streets because the food producers decided to let the non existent robots make the food. [editline]29th January 2011[/editline] Debate which consists of "watch the video watch the video you don't even understand the movement if you didnt watch the video you don't even know what youre talking about" and when he does contribute to discussion, all I see is posts that prove he knows nothing of modern day society or economy. Just poop pouring from the mouth.[/QUOTE] S7 rightly asked for specific points in the film that explain how the proponents expect the new society to work, and sillypiggy made the effor to provide a page, video and time within the video. There was nothing disrespectful. Please remember that learning is largely a process of trial and error. When sillypiggy has exhausted attempts at explanation, there will be no choice but to explore a different avenue of thought. As far as a workable explanation in the film piece provided by sillypiggy, I found more enumeration of what's wrong with an end result of a functioning, fictional order. The road map of how to get there was nowhere to be found. I think sillypiggy is confusing the means with the end, as the Zeitgeist movement seems to have done overall. This is what misdirection and misinformation accomplishes when plausible ideas are presented with selected true information and research. Meanwhile, entire aspects of society are disregarded and the dynamic nature of societal progress does not appear to have been taken into account. Ridicule and instant rejection of an individual's idea are more likely to solidify that idea in the proponent's mind, whereas a straightforward rebuttal (a little constructive humor helps, something aimed at a mutually agreed-upon point rather than differences) can do wonders for getting a point across. "[url=http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cato_the_Elder]Patience is the greatest of all virtues.[/url]" ~Cato

I had an argument with someone about this a while ago, and to summarize: Zeitgeist doesn't work. It won't work. There's too many people in the world for it to work. Anyone who supports it as a form of government today is uneducated and just generally stupid. It only works in theory because those who think it work are extremely ignorant of a billion different factors, which are glaringly obvious when you consider the philosophies of the "movement".

what are the philosophies of the movement??

[QUOTE=Sector 7;27726758]seems my premonitions about the movie were pretty accurate. Thanks for saving me 3 hours.[/QUOTE] If you still believe the things you originally posted then no. [editline]29th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=angeldelight;27732176]what are the philosophies of the movement??[/QUOTE] I guess simply use science as much as possible and forcing people to do stuff doesnt work. [editline]29th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;27730365Its not like people won't be fucking starving on the streets because the food producers decided to let the non existent robots make the food. [/QUOTE] I guess this is the only point you made the whole time so let me try to get it. Food isnt a hard thing to produce. If we wanted to we could even currently feed everyone on earth just with the lest overs people dont eat in other countries. But hydroponic farming is something new that could really help. With it we would be able to grow food in even Africa. and why do you say non existent robots? we already use machines for the automation industry. It would not be impossible to have them help with farming.

[QUOTE=yuki;27731806]I had an argument with someone about this a while ago, and to summarize: Zeitgeist doesn't work. It won't work. There's too many people in the world for it to work. Anyone who supports it as a form of government today is uneducated and just generally stupid. It only works in theory because those who think it work are extremely ignorant of a billion different factors, which are glaringly obvious when you consider the philosophies of the "movement".[/QUOTE] I agree that it won't work. It might be possible to get it started, though. There have been a lot of bad ideas that have launched, but couldn't stay aloft; there just needs to be enough support to make the effort. Even highly intelligent people can be duped, especially with psychological influence becoming a science more than an art. Economics is a perfect case in point - how many people with master's degrees and doctorates in finance thought a crash couldn't happen? What's more frightening is that they often fool themselves into rationalizing what they want to happen rather than respecting reality. Have you ever been surprised by the punchline of a joke? If you think you've never been fooled yourself, you're being fooled right now... Do you have a potential solution to correct the issues the Zeitgeist movement tries to tackle? [editline]29th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=angeldelight;27732176]what are the philosophies of the movement??[/QUOTE] The Wikipedia page sums up the general notions fairly well. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Zeitgeist_Movement#Concepts_advocated_by_the_Zeitgeist_Movement[/url]

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27732320]If you still believe the things you originally posted then no. [editline]29th January 2011[/editline]I guess this is the only point you made the whole time so let me try to get it. Food isnt a hard thing to produce. If we wanted to we could even currently feed everyone on earth just with the lest overs people dont eat in other countries. But hydroponic farming is something new that could really help. With it we would be able to grow food in even Africa. and why do you say non existent robots? we already use machines for the automation industry. It would not be impossible to have them help with farming.[/QUOTE] But here's the thing: Robots can't do everything for us. They can't even do most things for us. No matter how efficient you make an industry, there are still a lot of shitty jobs people will have to do, and they won't do them without an incentive. The idea of post-scarcity thanks to technology is not new. Science fiction authors have been exploring the idea for over half a century now. Hell, it was even included in Marx's communism - the idea that machines would help free the workers. And it has never been possible. And it still isn't. And it won't be possible anywhere in the foreseeable future.

[QUOTE=miscreanity;27726542]My estimates put things at at least 911 times worse than people think the situation really is. I spent the past few hours going through the video again to make a point-by-point assessment of the inconsistencies and brazen misinformation put forth in some sections. As a note, I don't see anything precluding the proposed system from succeeding, at first. However, it is capitalist in nature with a centralized governing entity that thereby gives it a socialist control system. They're trying to call a chicken a horse. A major danger is that a very small percentage of the population maintains the centralized control system and could easily abuse that access to create a potentially devastating oligarchic technocracy. The implications of that could be staggeringly worse than anything currently imaginable. [/QUOTE] again about 3% of a population would be in control of such things. we have less then 3% of the population making laws and being in control of much more dangerous things. They dont make laws or are in control of the government. all they do is check to make sure that the computer is doing its job and distributing resources properly. Now what do you think would be the motivation to for people for some reason to want to stop giving people resources? as long as the people checking the computer also get as many resources as possible there would be no need to be greedy with them. and besides if a programmer does suggest an update to the computer it will be checked to make sure that it doesnt have a take over the world part in it. and even if he did some how get the computer to some how give resources to only himself the worst that would happen is that the city he was in would not distribute resources properly and would be go back to its original state once it was figured out. which wouldnt take that long since people would notice that only a few people would be allowed to get resources. [editline]29th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Sector 7;27732617]They can't even do most things for us.[/QUOTE] give an example of a repetitive job that could not be automated now or in the near future. think about it. most of the jobs people do today seem to be just serving people or moving doing stuff with money like a waiter. Those would be useless in a moneyless system. The rest would involve the creation of products which has been almost completely taken over by machines.

Anyone who thinks the imagery in this movie is liken to propaganda, is an idiot who doesn't know how to put imagery in context. It fits perfectly with what they're putting forward, and what they're putting forward is accurate. Just because they use the imagery of a rich guy eating a danish before going into explaining the biological impact of our society, doesn't mean they're saying rich guys are pigs. If you're really so distracted by images, so much that you can't put them into context of what they're actually saying, then I feel sorry for you.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27732621]give an example of a repetitive job that could not be automated now or in the near future.[/QUOTE] uh... How near is the near future? A hundred years? Because at the moment, robotics is only useful for very repetitive, highly specialized tasks. Robots can't make cars without the help of human operators. They can't cook (unless they're just reheating McDonalds.) They can't repair anything, as a non-intelligent robot can't make advanced deductions to analyze damage of any kind. They can't wash dishes. They can't construct buildings (they can only make some parts of construction easier.) They can't perform surgery, prescribe medicine, or provide counseling. They can't teach (in any meaningful way, at least.) They can't farm without a human managing them. They can't decide where to drill for oil, or where to mine. They can't provide IT support (see repair.) They can't program. They can't put out fires. Robots can't actually do ANYTHING without human guidance. There is NO industry in the entire world where any factory building is completely manned by robots.

[QUOTE=Latency;27732852]Anyone who thinks the imagery in this movie is liken to propaganda, is an idiot who doesn't know how to put imagery in context. It fits perfectly with what they're putting forward, and what they're putting forward is accurate. Just because they use the imagery of a rich guy eating a danish before going into explaining the biological impact of our society, doesn't mean they're saying rich guys are pigs. If you're really so distracted by images, so much that you can't put them into context of what they're actually saying, then I feel sorry for you.[/QUOTE] I will admit though that they should have expected the people that are watching it to expect something like kill all rich people or something so I think they could have toned that down a bit.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27733040]I will admit though that they should have expected the people that are watching it to expect something like kill all rich people or something so I think they could have toned that down a bit.[/QUOTE] Yeah the ONLY thing that makes movie so targeted is the maker's past reputation. Something which should only be a factor in deciding whether or not to fact-check. It doesn't matter who's saying it, if something is a fact it's important. If the detractors of this movie want to pick away at it, they might want to start with picking away at their data first and then move onto philosophy, and finally ad-homs if they're feeling like useless dicks. Right now it's in the complete reverse order. 1)fucking conspiracy theorist anti-government morons 2)durr that's not human nature (without backing this up) 3)their technical goals aren't reachable (without backing this up)

[QUOTE=Sector 7;27733009]They can't wash dishes. They can't construct buildings (they can only make some parts of construction easier.) They can't perform surgery,[/QUOTE] for this you should have watched the movie (which you said you did). [quote]They can't cook (unless they're just reheating McDonalds.)[/quote] This is not true there are a few restaurants in japan that do all the cooking and they have made robots that can serve. [quote]prescribe medicine, or provide counseling.[/quote] First like i said before there would still be doctors until machines start to take that over which they are starting to do and 2nd if you watched the movie you would see that there would be a lot less "sick" people.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;27733009]/uh... How near is the near future? A hundred years? Because at the moment, robotics is only useful for very repetitive, highly specialized tasks. Robots can't make cars without the help of human operators. They can't cook (unless they're just reheating McDonalds.)[/QUOTE] Wow really? You think it's impossible for a machine to receive food from the automated harvesting plant, cut it, apply seasonings, dump it in an oven, cook it for a programmed amount of time and then serve it? [quote]They can't repair anything, as a non-intelligent robot can't make advanced deductions to analyze damage of any kind.[/quote] Here's an idea, give it a database of the ideal structures of the things it's tasked to fix, and then a database of damage types, it can then assess the changes in form from the damage, and what type of damage it is, and fix it accordingly. [quote]They can't wash dishes.[/quote] are you fucking kidding me? [quote]They can't construct buildings (they can only make some parts of construction easier.)[/quote] Yes they can, but you don't even need it to build the entire thing. If you're in the building stage, you can have people help because they'll be using it later, so it's worth it for them. [quote]They can't perform surgery, prescribe medicine, or provide counseling.[/quote] So some people will take on those roles. Most psychologists and surgeons take on the jobs because they want to, today. Why not then? [quote]They can't teach (in any meaningful way, at least.)[/quote] So some people will take on those roles. [quote]They can't farm without a human managing them.[/quote] They could if the farming system was build around automation. That's well withing possible limits of our tech. [quote]They can't decide where to drill for oil, or where to mine.[/quote] No shit. Why do you assume people wouldn't be willing to do that? With good education most people would probably know how to determine these things anyway. [quote]They can't provide IT support (see repair.) They can't program.[/quote] So why wouldn't people be doing these things? [quote]They can't put out fires. [/quote] Wow really? [quote]Robots can't actually do ANYTHING without human guidance. There is NO industry in the entire world where any factory building is completely manned by robots.[/quote] So you're using our current production methods to try to falsify a model of one that does everything automatically? As in, every step pre-planned and programmed before it's even built, and everything works as in an automated network? Yes, that's totally impossible, we don't have the tech. :rolleyes:

I remember when I first heard of it. I thought it was evil skynet communism and then I decided to stop making baseless claims and look into it.

[QUOTE=Latency;27733250]So some people will take on those roles. Most psychologists and surgeons take on the jobs because they want to, today. Why not then? [/QUOTE] Oh, that's a good idea. Lets build a society where the well-being of the entire population depends on thousands of people studying for years and years to become doctors simply out of the goodness of their hearts. Only a small portion of teachers teach for the satisfaction. Most would stop after a few years. Because the job sucks. Doctors don't become doctors because they like it. Doctors become doctors because the medical field makes for a very comfortable living. As for building an automated network for literally every field of work that isn't fun: good luck with that. Tell me how it works out.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;27733807]Oh, that's a good idea. Lets build a society where the well-being of the entire population depends on thousands of people studying for years and years to become doctors simply out of the goodness of their hearts. Only a small portion of teachers teach for the satisfaction. Most would stop after a few years. Because the job sucks. [/QUOTE] If the role of teaching inst to get good grades but to simply learn hen it would be easier. and besides teaching inst that bad. There are people who like to teach and even if it was so bad that people left after a year then we could get new teachers. I could see it becoming a nice thing educated people do for a while and then give the job to someone else. Not to mention with all the free time people will be getting and culture saying how great science and progress is there would be many willing to teach. [quote]Doctors don't become doctors because they like it. Doctors become doctors because the medical field makes for a very comfortable living.[/quote] Like I said before even this is starting to be mechanized and like I said before with he new system a lot of sicknesses would not be way more rare in the new system. If some one wants to learn about the human body and does I bet they would be willing to use there knowledge for something with the assistance of machines. [quote]As for building an automated network for literally every field of work that isn't fun: good luck with that. Tell me how it works out.[/quote] give me an example of a repetitive job that could not be automated.

[QUOTE=miscreanity;27730364]What matters is that he (or she) is making an effort to contribute to the debate.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure my first post outlined how seriously I take any part of that video. I only asked because he expresses an incredible amount of naivety.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27734285]If the role of teaching inst to get good grades but to simply learn hen it would be easier.[/QUOTE] Oh, so both school AND work are completely optional? Sounds like a pretty productive society to me. [sp]actually it sounds like it would completely collapse once people forget how to maintain the robots that are supposedly running society for them[/sp]

[QUOTE=Sector 7;27734974]Oh, so both school AND work are completely optional? Sounds like a pretty productive society to me. [sp]actually it sounds like it would completely collapse once people forget how to maintain the robots that are supposedly running society for them[/sp][/QUOTE] What makes you think kids wont go to school? parents will still have there children go toschool just like they do now. But without the focus for kids to learn things to help with a paying job they could learn all sorts of science, math and history in a funnier way. and like I said before are focus isnt to get every single person to have a job but only a percent of the population which would be much easier. 26% of Americans already volunteer. what makes you think that some how we cant get about 5% to do the same except this time its making a big difference and the supporting a system that supports them not to mention all the free time they have. [editline]29th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;27734877]Pretty sure my first post outlined how seriously I take any part of that video. I only asked because he expresses an incredible amount of naivety.[/QUOTE] You didnt watch the video and you dont know what its about but yet your able to call me naive? really?

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27735091]What makes you think kids wont go to school? parents will still have there children go toschool just like they do now. But without the focus for kids to learn things to help with a paying job they could learn all sorts of science, math and history in a funnier way. and like I said before are focus isnt to get every single person to have a job but only a percent of the population which would be much easier.[/QUOTE] You know they've already tried this, right? It was a big program (during the 80s, I think?) to see if a school like this would work. Kids going to the school didn't have to enlist in any classes. There were no grades. If you wanted to learn some history, you could walk into history class for a day. If you wanted to learn about dinosaurs, sure. Go ahead. Science, same thing. It was a fucking DISASTER.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;27735194]You know they've already tried this, right? It was a big program (during the 80s, I think?) to see if a school like this would work. Kids going to the school didn't have to enlist in any classes. There were no grades. If you wanted to learn some history, you could walk into history class for a day. If you wanted to learn about dinosaurs, sure. Go ahead. Science, same thing. It was a fucking DISASTER.[/QUOTE] I never said it wouldnt be supervised and you could do as you please in school but science and history would be put at the fore front of learning and made to seem fun so that way kids would like it. Parents would still make there kids go to school.