[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27735091]
You didnt watch the video and you dont know what its about but yet your able to call me naive? really?[/QUOTE]
I saw half of the video and I actually know exactly what the Zeitgeist movement is about. But that's beside the point. I am calling you naive because of what you think about human nature.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;27735374]I saw half of the video and I actually know exactly what the Zeitgeist movement is about. But that's beside the point. I am calling you naive because of what you think about human nature.[/QUOTE]
So you watched the part about how environment effects us? I think your naive for thinking that an organism doesnt react to his environment. especially one as complex as humans.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27735287]science and history would be put at the fore front of learning and made to seem fun so that way kids would like it.[/QUOTE]
Gee, make learning fun? I don't think ANYONE has tried [i]that[/i] before!
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27735418]So you watched the part about how environment effects us? I think your naive for thinking that an organism doesnt react to his environment. especially one as complex as humans.[/QUOTE]
That is a philosophical idea that has probably been around since the Renaissance. Do they seriously spend an hour and a half on that?
[QUOTE=Sector 7;27735569]Gee, make learning fun? I don't think ANYONE has tried [i]that[/i] before!
That is a philosophical idea that has probably been around since the Renaissance. Do they seriously spend an hour and a half on that?[/QUOTE]
environmental changes and organism and statistics proving that is a philosophy?
also your starting to not even make points. yes making learning fun has been tried so what? with more resources we could use math to learn how to make a go cart go faster wich would be really memorable and fun but even if I cant make school fun so what? parents will still make there kids go.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;27735569]Gee, make learning fun? I don't think ANYONE has tried [i]that[/i] before!
That is a philosophical idea that has probably been around since the Renaissance. Do they seriously spend an hour and a half on that?[/QUOTE]
You bring up excellent points, however you will never get anywhere. Arguing with the naive is a waste of time.
[editline]29th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27735639]environmental changes and organism and statistics proving that is a philosophy?
also your starting to not even make points. yes making learning fun has been tried so what? with more resources we could use math to learn how to make a go cart go faster wich would be really memorable and fun but even if I cant make school fun so what? parents will still make there kids go.[/QUOTE]
All your points are just speculation.
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;27735712]You bring up excellent points, however you will never get anywhere. Arguing with the naive is a waste of time.
[editline]29th January 2011[/editline]
All your points are just speculation.[/QUOTE]
No they are not and you have even made points. You are horrible at arguing you so just support someone who can come up with an argument even if you dont understand what we are talking about. Environments effect on an organism is not speculation at all.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27735639]environmental changes and organism and statistics proving that is a philosophy?
also your starting to not even make points. yes making learning fun has been tried so what? [B]with more resources we could use math to learn how to make a go cart go faster wich would be really memorable and fun but even if I cant make school fun so what? parents will still make there kids go.[/B][/QUOTE]
Going to go back through all your posts and point out your blind speculations and assumptions.
[editline]29th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27735287]I never said it wouldnt be supervised and you could do as you please in school [B]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.[/B][/QUOTE]
[editline]29th January 2011[/editline]
[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.
26% of Americans already volunteer.[B] 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.[/B]
[editline]29th January 2011[/editline]
You didnt watch the video and you dont know what its about but yet your able to call me naive? really?[/QUOTE]
[editline]29th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27734285][B]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.[/B]
[B]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.[/B]
give me an example of a repetitive job that could not be automated.[/QUOTE]
[editline]29th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27732621][B]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.[/B]
[editline]29th January 2011[/editline]
give an example of a repetitive job that could not be automated now or in the near future.
[B]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.[/B][/QUOTE]
WELP this idea will work because we can get people (slaves) to do THIS THIS AND THIS with out having any type of study or factual evidence to back up these crazy ideals. THIS PROJECT WILL WORK BECAUSE ROBOTS WILL MAKE IT SO. YOU JUST HAVE TO SUBMIT UNDER ONE GLOBAL POWER TO RULE THE WORLD.
"with more resources we could use math to learn how to make a go cart go faster wich would be really memorable and fun but even if I cant make school fun so what? parents will still make there"
Schools with more resources can teach there kids better. what do you not get about that?
[editline]29th January 2011[/editline]
"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." parents would still make there kids go to school. why would they not? A parent wants there kid to be smart and have a full filling life.
"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." unless you can give a reason why volunteer work would go down for some reason then please explain. especially when people have more free time.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27735933]"with more resources we could use math to learn how to make a go cart go faster wich would be really memorable and fun but even if I cant make school fun so what? parents will still make there"
Schools with more resources can teach there kids better. what do you not get about that?
[editline]29th January 2011[/editline]
"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." parents would still make there kids go to school. why would they not? A parent wants there kid to be smart and have a full filling life.[/QUOTE]
That is ALL SPECULATION. You CANT PROVE or show any type of evidence that this would be the case. For all we know parents would say fuck school as it is no longer NECESSARY TO GET A PAYING JOB. As there is no more jobs AS ROBOTS DO EVERYTHING.
[editline]29th January 2011[/editline]
"maybe if i rate all his posts dumb my point will get across better"
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;27735991]That is ALL SPECULATION. You CANT PROVE or show any type of evidence that this would be the case. For all we know parents would say fuck school as it is no longer NECESSARY TO GET A PAYING JOB. As there is no more jobs AS ROBOTS DO EVERYTHING.[/QUOTE]
Now thats speculation. and yes I can show proof that having more resources would allow for better teaching and its not speculation that a parent wants there kid to have a good life. Oh and i never said there is no jobs. Just way less. meaning that as long as a small percentage are willing to get a job then it would work and since like I said before there would be people to do it. this isnt speculation when we have so many people volunteer.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27736018]Now thats speculation. and yes I can show proof that having more resources would allow for better teaching and its not speculation that a parent wants there kid to have a good life. Oh and i never said there is no jobs. Just way less. meaning that as long as a small percetntage are willing to get a job then it would work and since like I said before there would be people to do it.[/QUOTE]
PROVE IT THEN. Parents want kids to get a good education to get A GOOD JOB so they can be successful in life.
Before reading this, know that I am not against automation and halting suffering of humanity. Nor do I think the end goals of the Zeitgeist movement and Venus Project are anything but commendable.
The issue I have with their actions is the lack of any definable plan for reaching the goal. In addition, directing ire toward an entire swath of targets without valid observation and analysis of the positive and negative aspects of them simply leads people down an emotionally-charged and irrational adherence to a plausible-sounding vision that promises the moon, yet doesn't elaborate on how.
How do we get to a point where every form of labor is taken care of through robotics? How do we maintain such a system if we are simply recipients of the benefits? What of human augmentation? Extraplanetary commerce and industry?
There are a multitude of questions surrounding topics that aren't considered which have the potential to adversely impact the Zeitgeist movement before it even develops a coherent course of action.
As promised, my (rough) analysis is as follows:
[list]
[*][u]Agree[/u]: Environment is a dominating factor in human development. This is revolutionary how? For a concise explanation with case analysis, read Malcolm Gladwell's [i][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book)]Outliers[/url][/i].
[*][u]Agree[/u]: Adaptability is key.
[*]How can the addictions that might arise in an individual be prevented from causing disruption in society?
[*]Gov't is the core problem.
[*]The investigative journalist talking about the workings of a free market makes gross misinterpretation of the 'invisible hand' of the markets and misapplication of god to the Adam Smith's [i]Wealth of Nations[/i].
[*]The folly of believeing that banking and finance generate wealth was well known to the founding fathers.
[*]There is a difference between fiat or paper money which is no more of a commodity than the paper and ink which represents it, and metals that are used for coin as real money; the former relies upon confidence in its exchangability whereas the latter have practical purposes when not in a form used for money.
[*][u]Agree[/u]: economic thought is wrong and calculating the mythical gdp is a futile, resource-intensive exercise in misdirection
[*][u]Agree[/u]: GDP, or gross domestic [b]product[/b] is a calculated basket of economic sector dollar values, of which consumer spending constitutes 70%; consumer spending is not production, it is the exact opposite; GDP is a blatant lie.
[*]Economics is both simpler and more intricate than what is purported by the video; diminishing returns are not discussed, nor government-manipulated and manufactured statistics that are a case of the fox guarding the henhouse.
[*][u]Agree[/u]: Pass a law, make a business is completely accurate; government has a monopoly on law - obvious conflict of interest.
[*]Capitalist economies approach maximal efficiency; governments interfering with business through legislation and regulation cause increasing inefficiency; gov't is the problem, not a sound financial system. The current financial system has been created by banks, legalized by gov't, and enforced by police/military.
[*]Businesses can scale back during slow times by reducing employee hours, laying off, moving production to cheaper areas, diversifying, etc... gov't is nearly impossible to cut back once it has spread out.
[*]Recreating governments is doing the same thing over and over; gov't is the anti-economy - see two above points.
[*]Gross misrepresentation and over-simplification of economic maxims.
[*]There is a continuum/range of product type and availability in any arena; the best/most effective balance of cost and quality, not just the best of everything.
[*]It is an utter lie that everything is immediately inferior; furniture, construction materials, fabrics, etc... these do not immediately fail. Responsibility for an item lies with the owner, such that care and maintenance can either extend the lifetime usefulness or erode it through neglect.
[*]Cost efficiency approaches limits of efficacy at which point there is a drop in profit, indicating that some aspect of the product or service is on a decline. This is a feedback mechanism in the same way that blood pressure and heart rate are indicators for circulatory system performance in the body. If I have no heart rate, it is difficult, if not impossible to determine my cardiac performance and respond or treat accordingly.
[*]Universal business and consumer objectives are to find a quality good or service at a reasonable price; this is not always the cheapest nor the most expensive.
[*]Economic rules put forth by this video are the drudgery that economics and finance majors are taught; they are not the core, simple laws of supply & demand.
[*]Planned obsolesence is not an objective; case in point - IBM Thinkpads: they developed a reputation for being so durable and reliable that they sold like hotcakes; I'm still using a 7 year old Thinkpad which, as anyone here can easily attest to, is generations for a computer product; meanwhile, cheap old chinese knockoffs that fell apart after a few months during the same era didn't garner repeat sales. Without return in the form of profit, IBM would not have known the level of success generated by the series.
[*]It is absence of competition that prevents new ideas and greater efficiency from taking hold, particularly through new legislation instituted by gov't; until established big businesses, mostly with assistance from and pressure on gov't for enforcement, can implement these new ideas and efficiency measures, they will not be brought to market. Thus, it is government collusion that needlessly slows progress.
[*]The lifespan of a product is the result of a balance in quality and cost; if an item outlives its usefulness for one person, but breaks before another has finished making use of it, is that planned obsolesence or waste?
[*]Money is a proxy for resources, particularly services and finished products. Money has many functions, including incentive and feedback. Run a business and you'll understand.
[*]A resource-based economy does not do away with scarcity; in fact, we're living with a resource based economy right now because when it all boils down to what supports the wealth that has been generated, resources (particularly agricultural) are at the core; what we have is limited at the lowest level by agricultural capacity and immediately in step with that, energy production capacity.
[*]Tech products seem to be the main things focused on, as if they are the sole product of modern economy; not only are there increasing numbers of businesses that are dedicated to recycling such items, there is an entire range of goods and services other than computer gadgets.
[*]Economic sustainability is synonymous with life sustainability, but this video uses subtle fear tactics to misdirect on that point. An economic system can apply to a single cell or an entire planet. A better term might be a logistics system.
[*]None of the economic points in this video cut down to the core of why things are the way they are; why businesses find incentive to waste instead of gear toward efficiency and quality. The culprit is government, but the focus is on the [b]symptom[/b] (monetary system disruption) rather than the [b]cause[/b] (gov't).
[*]Status symbols have been present throughout mankind's history; does the ZM think it's going to just stop what seems to be an inherent predisposition?
[*]At about [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&t=1h03m50s]1:03.50[/url], it is obvious to see that the focus on exchanging 'useless crap' is aimed at Christmas; for the Jewish, Channukah is a time to gift practical things.
[*][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&t=1h04m30s]1:04.30[/url]: Word of mouth and referral still trounce advertising; ads create awareness, but a quality product or service must stand behind the ad or it will fade into obscurity, otherwise every movie produced would be a raging success.
[*][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&t=1h05m25s]1:05.25[/url]: Sound bytes of Milton Friedman that do not cut to the core of why there was no social support structure for an indivdual, or why there wasn't enough money for the individual to provide for himself without providing greater context, are scare tactics.
[*]None of the economists listed in the video supported government interference in business and markets, with the exception of Keynes. Even he was considering empirical evidence that his ideas were incurring unforeseen consequences.
[*]There is no magic behind productive enterprise as presupposed by the 'investigative journalist'.
[*]Nowhere is a 'money sequence' defined or elaborated upon; this is a serious inconsistency - where is this defined?
[*]The rationale and reasoning for self-interest associated with interpersonal productive dealings and relations is clearly outlined in [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Liberty][i]The Market for Liberty[/i][/url] by Linda & Morris Tannehill.
[*]A business that kills its clients or does not provide a worthwhile and quality product or service will not remain in business. There is no debate on this in any realm of economics.
[*]This video attempts to do away with any sense of personal responsibility; history has already seen this in the catastrophes that have been government-managed economies. Even reliance on automation through robotics has its own dangers that have been debated ad infinitum for the past century. Who repairs the robots? What if the repair mechanism breaks down? And so on.
[*]This is another version of creating equality where there never has been, and attempting to do so will destroy the productive capacity of society. This is the result of socialism. Providing for the base needs of human life (food, potable water, shelter) is no guarantee of either equality or success.
[*]Money itself is any commodity used as a proxy for other forms of wealth, therefore money is not debt; credit is debt.
[*][u]Agree[/u]: [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&t=1h11m15s]1:11.15[/url]: The description of current western monetary system is correct; the current monetary system is not capitalist, it has capitalistic traits.
[*][u]Agree[/u]: [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&t=1h19m45s]1:19.45[/url]: Personal responsibility is hinted at, but not directly presented as a necessity for changing the system. The responsibility is instead attributed to the intangible, emergent property of the society as a whole. A society only changes with a shift in the mindset of its component individuals. The change must come from the individual adhering, or being pressured into taking responsibility for himself.
[*]The inequality fallacy is resurrected without examining the cause: government, especially bank-owned gov't.
[*][u]Agree[/u]: Fractional reserve banking is completely illegitimate; however, wealthy individuals depositing their assets at a bank allows for aggregate funds from which loans can be made for productive endeavors - buying consumer items geared toward further consumption (ipad, home theater, etc) on credit is a bank pushed social phenomenon encouraged by government. A solid financial core that is not dependent upon accounting games is entirely feasible and highly stable.
[*]On equality: are you the equal of a 2m tall, 120kg martial arts guru? Unless you yourself are 2m tall and weigh 120kg, no. Equality is a voluntary state, not something to be forced. This movement seems willing to enforce their view of 'equality'.
[*]'The monetary system' leads the viewer into thinking there is only one method for handling exchange; the spectrum of logistic systems is omitted.
[*]There is extensive confusion of inequality as a cause rather than a symptom; misdiagnosis. The cause has multiple facets. Equality is the result of circumstantially-induced entropy.
[*]Equality results in shared misery to a point of everyone achieving the same level of indifference. Norway is one of the 'happiest' nations in the world. The predominant attitude there is one of 'things are alright, so I am happy'. There is still inequality there. [u]Statistics do not (and mostly cannot) take into account the fact that the CEO of a major Norwegian company might have citizenship in the US or Germany and therefore be counted as having income there instead of in Norway. In this manner, the workers are all in Norway, so of course the wealth disparity will be lower.[/u]
[*]Why is wealth inequality so great? When it comes to the huge difference in banker income, the banks have short-circuited corrective forces by enforcing illegitimate and harmful laws through pressure on government. Then, having enacted this legislation, maintains the law through threat police force.
[*]Poor individuals are physically incapable of returning to the land in order to obtain subsistence. This is true in any social environment, but predominantly urban and suburban areas. They must rely on government support, thus preventing government from shrinking. Capitalism involves culling of waste and inefficiency, but government consumes capitalist sectors of an economy, thus circumventing capitalism. Gov't [b]is[/b] the problem.
[*][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&t=1h29m00s]1:29.00[/url]: The socio-economic system is at fault for all the ills of the world? How did that come to pass? Who chose or developed it? If the cause isn't corrected, will it be able to adapt and take over any future society? What safeguards are there against this? Will they be effective? How? Why?
[*][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&t=1h30m00s]1:30.00[/url]: We don't have a completely blank slate to start from. There will be a transitional period. This is unvavoidable. No solution offered by the Zeitgeist movement offers a practical and realistic path to the end goal.
[*]Who finds resources? Who determines how much can be used and how long it will take for finite, unreplenishable resources to be used up? Who 'tracks' the 'inventory'? It's starting to seem like an awful great onus placed on what could be deemed a singularity in the form of a breakthrough AI.
[*][u]Agree[/u]: Factual data. Yes, we are all connected, as are all of the natural systems. This is scientifically provable.
[*]A single, centralized global resource management system... socialism. Again, monitored by 3% of the population. Why 3%? What if one city only has 1% capable of maintaining the system? What if a virus or worm is created? They can propagate to other cities. The possibilities are extensive.
[*]Back to assumptions... all goods [i]must[/i] be designed to last as long as possible? Will everything be made of granite?
[*][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&t=1h37m40s]1:37.40[/url]: Computers are going to have accomodate physical updates? Tell that to the engineer who switches from Silicon to Gallium Arsenide as the semiconductor. That requires a structural change that isn't a simple replacement. Imposing artificial limits is the same as government mandates, ergo government. Computers will have to be standardized and universally interchangeable? Welcome to the 1990s - swap out a cpu, memory, hard drive, etc...
[*]Preservation, safety and efficiency are practices that many businesses have been adhering to for a very long time, except where government creates disincentive to do the right thing. As an example: Weyerhauser has been planting new trees where it clear cuts and rotates through so that the timber is continually being replenished. The company has been doing this for decades because it is more profitable to farm the trees for timber in relatively controlled situations than to continually scout for new sources. On the other side, medical waste has been disposed of improperly because regulation needlessly drove up the cost of proper disposal.
[*]Individual businesses need to compete, innovate and excel in their respective fields in order to survive and thrive. Any grand ideas may be all well and good, but the natural order of things will eventually take its course. Rather than fighting those forces, working with them provides the best results.
[*]Figuring out the logistics requires plugging the numbers into a computer and interpreting the results? Yeah, time to catch up - that's so 20th century. Every automobile manufacturer, steel production facility, energy generation utility and countless other businesses have been doing this for decades.
[*]'Proximity strategy' already takes place. It's called the natural process of civilization. Cities don't magically spring up near major sources of water for no reason.
[*]Perfect case: Zipcar. In general, any rental by whatever name for the past... millennium.
[*]Free enterprise was being usurped by bank-owned government in the US as far back as the beginning of the 1900s. The great depression was brought on by banking and WWII became the excuse for debt. After the war, the US had the only fully intact productive capacity of major size, allowing it to easily pay off its debts. By the early 1970s, government had destroyed the monetary system. From there, it took less than a decade for the scam to come unraveled and the western world economy nearly self-destructed, but the economy was still strong enough to survive. We are now revisiting 1980 and the economy will not survive this time.
[*]What empirical evidence and testing can be pointed to with economics? It's harder to analyze than psychology, but the principles can be identified and historical precedent does exist.
[*]If every system than can be tested, should be tested, doesn't it stand to reason that a free market without government interference would be a good test?
[*]Profit and loss are the measurements that a business uses to determine its success and accuracy of its predictive assumptions or 'math'.
[*]I'm an avid proponent of vertical farming; there are things that it can't produce - cattle for one; investors are reluctant to develop primarily for fear of uncertainty as to how gov't regulations and interference will impact such a highly resource intensive and experimental technology, although NYU in NYC is planning a test structure on the UWS. Generating food resources and constructing recycling facilities in situ would largely alleviate the need for a grand, centralized resource management system.
[*]With centralized authority resting at the helm of a computer AI and maintained by a very small segment of the population, what precludes the development of a technocratic socialism? An oligarchic technocracy dominated by people who think they can do better for others than they can do for themselves? It's always for everone's own good, but the notion that the road to hell is paved with good intentions applies.
[*]How much creativity and innovation is produced by what percentage of the population? Historically, a small percentage produce the majority of innovations. The rest delve into hedonistic activities of consumption with marginal contribution. I don't see equality here.
[*]Mundane actions are not the only things compensated for by monetary reward. Nor is money in and of itself a reward, yet it is an incentive and feedback mechanism.
[*][u]Agree[/u]: Drug abuse is a disorder, not a crime. That's the most sensible thing i've heard yet. Who made drug usage illegal? Government again, through moralistic imperative.
[*]There are good points made by Mr. Fresco, but there's a tinge of superiority to him that he doesn't seem to acknowledge. I know I'm an[sp]asshole[/sp], but I damn well respect that fact and invite criticism that might point out any flaws inherent in my thinking. How else am I to become right all the time?
[*][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&t=2h14m35s]2:14.35[/url]: No longer any -ism, we'll just call it 'life value analysis'... -ism. This is the most brazenly absurd contradiction in the entire film. It re-establishes the tone of the whole project as a microcosmic tautology.
[*][u]Agree[/u]: Voting is suggested to be inconsequential. Again, gov't is the problem. Two primary parties, both racing toward the same result. There is actually a [url=http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-democracies-will-always-go-bankrupt.html]very good explanation[/url] for this reinterpreted recently by Gonzalo Lira.
[*]Every gov't is for sale? Then gov't is the problem. Government is a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_point_of_failure]single point of failure[/url].
[*][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&t=2h19m42s]2:19.42[/url]: Best commentary of the entire video.
[*][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&t=2h21m00s]2:21.00[/url]: By any other name, capitalism has been the only system to pervade throughout history.
[*][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&t=2h21m30s]2:21.30[/url]: Name dropping of horrific figures in history is looked down on. That's an understandable criticism of the critics.
[*][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&t=2h22m15s]2:22.15[/url]: So the movement turns around and does the same thing by displaying images of horrific suffering from starvation.
[*]Why are people in poverty? They aren't there by choice. They're kept there by forces greater than their ability to overcome. Governments, great and small, create environments that are oppressive and restrictive. Gov't [b]is[/b] the problem. Otherwise, countries where there is poverty to the point that money is meaningless and the only food comes in the form of international aid packages would be able to start growing their own food and working their way back to a sustainable life instead of struggling to survive.
[*]Poverty kills? Isn't that personifying a state of asset or wealth possession? That's the same thing as saying that terrorism is a bearded Muslim. Terrorism is a concept that cannot be eradicated by shooting it. Poverty can lead to starvation, dehydration and violence. Oppression perpetuates poverty. Governments have a monopoly on national oppression. Government [b]is[/b] the problem.
[*]Poverty causes bankers and politicians to collude? Once more, confusing the symptom with the cause.
[*]Every form of energy harnessed (wind, coal, oil) has resulted in explosive growth that rises to capacity. The explosive growth from coal usage was phenomenal compared to wind. The explosive growth from oil usage was phenomenal compared to coal. When the productive capacity is exceeded, people start dying. This is going to happen in the very near future, and it has happened many times before. It is too late to stop the course that has been set in motion... by government incompetence, ineptitude and ignorance.
[*][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&t=2h25m08s]2:25.08[/url]: A lack of response to a crisis situation from government? You don't say. Again, gov't is the problem.
[*][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&t=2h27m00s]2:27.00[/url]: Natural gas can replace oil. It's mostly a matter of reconfiguring existing infrastructure. It isn't a final solution, but it could push collapse out by about 50 years.
[*][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&t=2h27m48s]2:27.48[/url]: This is not the first time a finite resource has been used up. It's occurred many times. See Jared Diamond's [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed][i]Collapse[/i][/url]. The reaction has historically been population dispersal.
[*][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&t=2h28m40s]2:28.40[/url]: The incentive for renewables isn't there because fuel oil is still subsidized... by gov't, especially the US.
[*][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&t=2h30m25s]2:30.25[/url]: China, Brazil, et al.
[*][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&t=2h30m55s]2:30.55[/url]: Acknowledge that this system is not capitalism.
[/list]
Thank you for taking the time to read this. Keep any and all rebuttals or responses civil and based in logic.
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;27736086]PROVE IT THEN. Parents want kids to get a good education to get A GOOD JOB so they can be successful in life.[/QUOTE]
Parents want smart kids. This is why parents have all those kid shows (even though studies show its worse for the kids) There are kids with diseases who wont be able to live over the age of 13 and yet those kids go to school. what parent would want a friendless brain dead lazy kid? I think parents want there kid to get social skills and meat people of the opposite (or sometimes same) sex.
miscreanity it is going to take time to read and respond to this so let me start with one
"At about 1:03.50, it is obvious to see that the focus on exchanging 'useless crap' is aimed at Christmas; for the Jewish, Channukah is a time to gift practical things."
Well think about it. If people got stuff for free then there would be no use in giving items. also how christmass isnt about the family as much as the gifts now a days and how it conditions people.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27736223]Parents want smart kids. This is why parents have all those kid shows (even though studies show its worse for the kids) There are kids with diseases who wont be able to live over the age of 13 and yet those kids go to school. what parent would want a friendless brain dead lazy kid? I think parents want there kid to get social skills and meat people of the opposite (or sometimes same) sex.
miscreanity it is going to take time to read and respond to this so let me start with one
"At about 1:03.50, it is obvious to see that the focus on exchanging 'useless crap' is aimed at Christmas; for the Jewish, Channukah is a time to gift practical things."
Well think about it. If people got stuff for free then there would be no use in giving items. also how christmass isnt about the family as much as the gifts now a days and how it conditions people.[/QUOTE]
The concept behind giving gifts is not simply because it's available. It's typically to show appreciation. In some cultures, it's an offering of appeasement.
I loved Zeitgeist and Addendum. It was a very mind opening experience. I also enjoyed this one.
However, with all 3 there are things coated in conspiracy theories, propaganda style movie making and sometimes misinformation. It's goals and motives are noble, and the problems it talks about should be obvious to anyone. Schools that mass-produce, an economy system designed to fail, lust for money and power ect... It's all there, and you don't need a movie to know those things.
Great watch, but it is to be taken with a grain of salt.
[QUOTE=miscreanity;27736390]The concept behind giving gifts is not simply because it's available. It's typically to show appreciation. In some cultures, it's an offering of appeasement.[/QUOTE]
Yes I know its all good hearted but it would be useless to give some one something they could already get. unless it was a painting they made or something. Hmm if people spent there time creating the gifts I bet it would be a lot more personal.
"None of the economic points in this video cut down to the core of why things are the way they are"
I thought that was the monetary system? I mean that is why people are greedy right? so they can get junk.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27735418]So you watched the part about how environment effects us? I think your naive for thinking that an organism doesnt react to his environment. especially one as complex as humans.[/QUOTE]
I know reading comprehension is hard, but I also know you aren't out of middle school yet so I'll let it pass.
I liked Zeitgeist more when they were blatantly conspiracy theorist fearmongers, this NWO thinking doesn't do them enough justice.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27736476]Yes I know its all good hearted but it would be useless to give some one something they could already get. unless it was a painting they made or something. Hmm if people spent there time creating the gifts I bet it would be a lot more personal.
"None of the economic points in this video cut down to the core of why things are the way they are"
I thought that was the monetary system? I mean that is why people are greedy right? so they can get junk.[/QUOTE]
The monetary system is a tool. It facilitates exchange of goods, services and ideas. That's all. It can be used in a positive manner, or it can be taken advantage of for nefarious purposes.
Greed does not arise from a monetary system itself, just as corruption does not come shrink-wrapped with a newly minted government.
Emotional states and human passions have not changed since the advent of documented history. People will experience anger, jealousy, fear and any other number of emotional states to some degree or another. There is no way to eliminate these traits, even in the most tightly controlled environment ([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Truman_Show]The Truman Show[/url] is a great film based on much philosophical debate).
Let's say you were to create a piece of art that I found particularly appealing and I wanted it. You don't want to part with it, so you refuse. I want it so badly that I decide to take it from you.
Now what? Will I be punished? Will I have to pay reparations for your loss? How?
Take an alternate of that scenario. You are willing to part with it, but you would strongly prefer not to. I have been tinkering with new control software for my main humanoid robot that allows it to dance a jig. You ask me for my code in exchange for your art. If we both think it's worthwhile, we agree - I give you my software code and you give me your artwork.
A mutually agreed upon exchange has just taken place. Now extrapolate that toward any number of potential different concepts and you'll start to see just how difficult and impractical it would be to even attempt eradication of money. You can also see that, even without money, greed can exist and cause harm.
A monetary system is an emergent property of complex system that involves varied and unequal productive capacity.
This is just one point that tears a gaping hole right through the very basis of what the Zeitgeist movement wants to achieve. Even in a fully automated world, a monetary system would still arise.
Even if there were an attempt made to eradicate 'bad' emotions, it would require people to undergo surgery and therapy at the very least. It would also take generations to eradicate such capacity from biological organisms. On top of all that, it certainly isn't something most people would voluntarily agree to.
[editline]29th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;27737027]I know reading comprehension is hard, but I also know you aren't out of middle school yet so I'll let it pass.
I liked Zeitgeist more when they were blatantly conspiracy theorist fearmongers, this NWO thinking doesn't do them enough justice.[/QUOTE]
It's terrifying now, mostly because it's become insidious. People who decide to follow the movement will wind up advocating their own subjugation at the hands of those who would take advantage of a premature and ill-conceived concept for a society.
Again, the technology aspect is all well and good, but I'd hate to have to bow down to President Robot-o as it declares humans to be inefficient waste...
"Let's say you were to create a piece of art that I found particularly appealing and I wanted it. You don't want to part with it, so you refuse. I want it so badly that I decide to take it from you." we have the ability to copy paintings. If someone really cared about the painting they would care about the picture and nothing else. Its like wanting to read the original copy of a book. It doesn't change what the book says and people really only want the original painting the the a status buster.
"You ask me for my code in exchange for your art. If we both think it's worthwhile, we agree - I give you my software code and you give me your artwork." why do that when everyone in the world can have both. those are things that can be copied.
"greed can exist and cause harm."
greed comes from wanting something and not caring if someone else cant have it. If everyone can get something then this would not be an issue.
Zeitgeist means Time Ghost in German.
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;27737566]Zeitgeist means Time Ghost in German.[/QUOTE]
Zeitgeist is "the spirit of the times"
it looks like its just a translation thing
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27737487]"Let's say you were to create a piece of art that I found particularly appealing and I wanted it. You don't want to part with it, so you refuse. I want it so badly that I decide to take it from you." we have the ability to copy paintings. If someone really cared about the painting they would care about the picture and nothing else. Its like wanting to read the original copy of a book. It doesn't change what the book says and people really only want the original painting the the a status buster.
"You ask me for my code in exchange for your art. If we both think it's worthwhile, we agree - I give you my software code and you give me your artwork." why do that when everyone in the world can have both. those are things that can be copied.[/QUOTE]
How do you advocate eliminating the appeal or originality?
Before you answer that, I suggest at least a basic grounding in psychology (particularly developmental). There is an excellent course from MIT - [url=http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/brain-and-cognitive-sciences/9-00-introduction-to-psychology-fall-2004/]Intro to Psych[/url].
Social engineering can only influence people for so long before they break from a detrimental course. People are not lemmings, despite their herd-like actions at times.
If your friend saw a big puddle of rainbow liquid and wanted to check it out, but you knew from an experience of near death that it gives off extremely noxious fumes, would you try to keep your friend from going? Even if he still wanted to go? What if he violently struggled to go toward it? What if other people wanted to go as well?
[editline]29th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27737487]greed comes from wanting something and not caring if someone else cant have it. If everyone can get something then this would not be an issue.[/QUOTE]
Not everyone can get my code or your art until they're shared voluntarily. If they find out about it, there will is an initial infatuation phase. Then interest dies down. Again, study psychology a bit.
[QUOTE=miscreanity;27737782]How do you advocate eliminating the appeal or originality?
Before you answer that, I suggest at least a basic grounding in psychology (particularly developmental). There is an excellent course from MIT - [url=http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/brain-and-cognitive-sciences/9-00-introduction-to-psychology-fall-2004/]Intro to Psych[/url].
Social engineering can only influence people for so long before they break from a detrimental course. People are not lemmings, despite their herd-like actions at times.
If your friend saw a big puddle of rainbow liquid and wanted to check it out, but you knew from an experience of near death that it gives off extremely noxious fumes, would you try to keep your friend from going? Even if he still wanted to go? What if he violently struggled to go toward it? What if other people wanted to go as well?[/QUOTE]
Wait why do you think someone would want the original instead of a replica? I wouldnt care less which one I get and so would most real art fans. I dont see why someone would need the original.
and even if some how people are hard wired to like the original I never said this system would be perfect. Just a lot better then the one we have today.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27737844]Wait why do you think someone would want the original instead of a replica? I wouldnt care less which one I get and so would most real art fans. I dont see why someone would need the original.[/QUOTE]
Then we're at an impasse. Understanding the desire for originality is critical to proceed.
Again, I strongly recommend studying at least basic psychology. There needs to be a common foundation to continue from.
It has been a pleasure bouncing ideas back and forth.
[QUOTE=miscreanity;27737910]Then we're at an impasse. Understanding the desire for originality is critical to proceed.
Again, I strongly recommend studying at least basic psychology. There needs to be a common foundation to continue from.
It has been a pleasure bouncing ideas back and forth.[/QUOTE]
Well I do like psychology but I never had the time to study it. could you please show a link or something that shows that people like the original more then a copy. I mean even if its normal for someone to like the original I cant see it to be impossible to be changed environmentally. I mean I would consider videogames an art but yet I dont want to play on the original computers that it was created on.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27738028]Well I do like psychology but I never had the time to study it. could you please show a link or something that shows that people like the original more then a copy. I mean even if its normal for someone to like the original I cant see it to be impossible to be changed environmentally. I mean I would consider videogames an art but yet I dont want to play on the original computers that it was created on.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs[/url]
[url]http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/brain-and-cognitive-sciences/9-00-introduction-to-psychology-fall-2004/[/url]
[QUOTE=miscreanity;27738447][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs[/url]
[url]http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/brain-and-cognitive-sciences/9-00-introduction-to-psychology-fall-2004/[/url][/QUOTE]
Well I skimmed it and read the major parts I dont see anything that has to do with the original art piece vs copies.
Hey miscreanity you are wasting your time arguing with imasillypiggy. He's probably 10 years old and every single reply he posts is not logical or well thought out. Every time you say why it won't work he says "but what if" and so on and so on. (He also doesn't seem to read the majority of your posts)
Edit:
On second thought you are probably just amused from tearing apart his dreams and showing him reality.
One of those movements that are meant for people who want to believe that there could be a perfect world.
They make these ridiculous assumptions that without money or the government everything would be just great. The world doesn't work like that. Even if there were no money, there will be people who want to have something in more quantaties than someone else. There will always be things like jealousy and greed which will eventually fuck everything up in the rear again and alas, were back in the normal world.
These kinda movements are stupid.
[QUOTE=Agent_Wesker;27739309]Hey miscreanity you are wasting your time arguing with imasillypiggy. He's probably 10 years old and every single reply he posts is not logical or well thought out. Every time you say why it won't work he says "but what if" and so on and so on. (He also doesn't seem to read the majority of your posts)[/QUOTE]
Im currently reading the the links he sent me and ask for more clarity on subject I dont understand. I know its easy to call every one who doesnt agree with you a 10 year old who is stupid but you could try to form your own arguments against it. I mean we havent even gone into the technical reasons of why or why it would not work.
[editline]29th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Hullu V3;27739397]there will be people who want to have something in more quantaties than someone else.[/QUOTE]
know your just making assumptions. First I dont believe in a perfect world because there is always something that could be improved on. 2nd you think someone will want a 1000 xboxes for no reason which isnt just useless but it will take up space and time to get them. so no people would not do that. There would also be no greed if people were able to get what they wanted. No one would take a car from someone if they could get there own.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
