Yea I would agree that during the transition you would have to put a few caps on things. But over time the restriction should go away. Its not so much as the government telling you that you cant do this or that as simply a computer saying a truck cant carry that much so you will have to lower that number by a few zeroes. I dont think this is something that will put people into a fit of rage or anything either because a delivery wont go over a million pounds or something.
I would like to reiterate that no matter what point I try to make, it's still challenged by cultural norms. Belief in human rights varies from person to person depending on culture. Whether or not somebody else's rights affects them, they will have beliefs in what others should or shouldn't be able to do. So ultimately, the belief in what a person is allowed to own may be measured by another's belief in religion or whatever it may be.
But hopefully a smarter culture will have smarter and better defined morals and what they consider a human right.
What happens when the very definition of what humanity is, changes? When homo sapiens transitions into something more along the lines of homo mechanicus?
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27827819]I can expect most not to. at first I would expect a few people to go nuts and ask for a lot of things but about a generation in the culture and understanding that there is no use for a Tv to be in every room of your house will set in.[/QUOTE]
Except there is a use for a TV in every room of the house; that is, being able to watch TV in any room of the house. Normally, people don't have that many TVs because they can't afford them. The people who could afford them don't buy them because they wouldn't have money if they didn't have common sense.
Look, I'm going to stop responding to this thread.
The zeitgeist movement is idiotic, impossible, and entirely counter-productive anyway. It's founders are a manipulative conspiracy theorist and a 94-year-old man who may or may not have gotten all of his ideas from 50s era sci-fi novels. I've said my piece, and to be honest you have yet to put forth a single solid counterargument that doesn't cast the human race out to be something it isn't.
Wasn't the other Zeitgeist movie based on lies, rebutted arguments and lack of evidence?
[QUOTE=miscreanity;27828532]What happens when the very definition of what humanity is, changes? When homo sapiens transitions into something more along the lines of homo mechanicus?[/QUOTE]
I think it has been proven, even outside this movie, that psychology has a much greater effect on how we behave than inherited genes. In other words, what we have observed humans doing in the past is just the result of environmental circumstances. One of the very few true instincts we all have is the need for ourselves and our species to survive, how we come about doing it is irrelevant.
[QUOTE=Jookia;27830432]Wasn't the other Zeitgeist movie based on lies, rebutted arguments and lack of evidence?[/QUOTE]
I think that's what you get when the movie is backed by the opinion of almost a single person. See Sector 7's latest post.
You know, I'll bite. I'm entirely green on things like socio-economics. But that movie fascinated and even my ignorant mind had to look at some of the stuff and say "This is utopioanist buillshit" a lot of it didn't. And it did, probably what it set out to do in the first place. Which is to get me thinking. I want to learn more, and I intend to.
[QUOTE=miscreanity;27828532]What happens when the very definition of what humanity is, changes? When homo sapiens transitions into something more along the lines of homo mechanicus?[/QUOTE]
You mean when humans start replacing there biological bodies with machines. Well since I dont have a time machine I dont know for sure but when we are fully mechanized then well I dont think we would even be using a government then.
[editline]3rd February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sector 7;27829855]Except there is a use for a TV in every room of the house[/QUOTE]
Because someone wont go through the trouble of going and getting another tv. sure I could see a tv in more then one room but they wont want to waste space. also if you look at rich people it seems they dont spend all day watching tv. they spend it traveling. I dont think in the future when you can do whatever you want that you will choose most of your time watching T.V. you say that im somehow not getting how humans work but a lot of your arguments can be stopped by common sense. Your acting like culture wont have an effect on people and people will be a dick to each other just to be a dick. If you look at Denmark you see that there are many people working even though that if they didnt want to they could still get enough money to live. and even though thats true you dont see everyone just not working so that way they can get free money. the culture of a place mages its people a lot.
[editline]3rd February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jookia;27830432]Wasn't the other Zeitgeist movie based on lies, rebutted arguments and lack of evidence?[/QUOTE]
Sure if your talking about the first movie.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27840740]Sure if your talking about the first movie.[/QUOTE]
And what makes this movie any different?
Because Its not making conspiracy claims. I dont think he paid those scientists to lie about how environment effects a person.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27840740]You mean when humans start replacing there biological bodies with machines. Well since I dont have a time machine I dont know for sure but when we are fully mechanized then well I dont think we would even be using a government then.[/QUOTE]
So you're willing to adhere to 'x' being the way things will be in the future while acknowledging that you have no idea how 'y' will affect that future? Not to mention that there are innumerable other variables that could affect the ZM-depicted future.
[QUOTE]
[editline]3rd February 2011[/editline]
Because someone wont go through the trouble of going and getting another tv. sure I could see a tv in more then one room but they wont want to waste space. also if you look at rich people it seems they dont spend all day watching tv. they spend it traveling. I dont think in the future when you can do whatever you want that you will choose most of your time watching T.V. you say that im somehow not getting how humans work but a lot of your arguments can be stopped by common sense. Your acting like culture wont have an effect on people and people will be a dick to each other just to be a dick. If you look at Denmark you see that there are many people working even though that if they didnt want to they could still get enough money to live. and even though thats true you dont see everyone just not working so that way they can get free money. the culture of a place mages its people a lot.[/QUOTE]
An individual with a personal preference to have a display on every wall of his abode will be denied existence, then?
Do you think that resources are acquired by sitting around doing nothing? You don't realize that it's a fantasy to believe that people who choose not to put effort in won't be cut off?
Do you believe that culture feeds and clothes people more than work?
[QUOTE]
[editline]3rd February 2011[/editline]
Sure if your talking about the first movie.[/QUOTE]
I've noted earlier in this thread that the techniques used in this docu-drama (it isn't objective enough to be called a documentary) are surreptitious and designed to prod the viewer's thinking in a certain direction.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27843314]Because Its not making conspiracy claims. I dont think he paid those scientists to lie about how environment effects a person.[/QUOTE]
Irrespective of whether the appearances of individuals in the film were paid or not, the science portrayed involved minor slices of the respective fields. Developmental psychology and economics are massive in scope. Presenting only the bits that support the film is, by definition, propaganda.
@sillypiggy - study topics objectively and draw your own conclusions without the aid of biased material. Otherwise, as with the Zeitgeist movement, you'll be sucked into time-tested methods of trickery that will steer you toward paths that always lead to decay.
This thread needs to die.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27843314]Because Its not making conspiracy claims. I dont think he paid those scientists to lie about how environment effects a person.[/QUOTE]
Have you read anything skeptical against this movie?
[QUOTE=miscreanity;27843930]So you're willing to adhere to 'x' being the way things will be in the future while acknowledging that you have no idea how 'y' will affect that future? Not to mention that there are innumerable other variables that could affect the ZM-depicted future.
[/QUOTE]
I understand that I dont know what the future will be like exactly. But I know that culture and resources effect people. I know the state that technology is in also. An example could be that I know that stress and being poor causes a lot of violence. By this I am pretty sure that if there were less poor people and less stress then there would be less violence.
[editline]3rd February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jookia;27844051]Have you read anything skeptical against this movie?[/QUOTE]
yes I have and most of it came from a lack of understanding what the venus project was. A lot of people said the system will take away there guns or make everyone work 12 hours a day. something that they just assumed without even looking in to it.
[editline]3rd February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=miscreanity;27843930]Irrespective of whether the appearances of individuals in the film were paid or not, the science portrayed involved minor slices of the respective fields. Developmental psychology and economics are massive in scope. Presenting only the bits that support the film is, by definition, propaganda.
[/QUOTE]
could you give me specific studies that shows that money is the only motivator or something like it.
Miscreanity, we did our work here. Its time to go home.
The stupidity, it burns.
As soon as the first movie claimed that 9/11 was an inside job, I stopped watching all together. Clearly the cult leader has a few screws loose.
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;27844308]Miscreanity, we did our work here. Its time to go home.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean. If what he is saying is correct and there is studies that prove me wrong then let him post them. He would be one step away from checkmate.
[editline]3rd February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jookia;27844374]The stupidity, it burns.
As soon as the first movie claimed that 9/11 was an inside job, I stopped watching all together. Clearly the cult leader has a few screws loose.[/QUOTE]
I dont believe in the 9/11 conspiracy or at least have not gotten enough proof to believe in it. In fact a lot of people in the movement dont believe in the 9/11 conspiracy thing.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27844146]I understand that I dont know what the future will be like exactly. But I know that culture and resources effect people. I know the state that technology is in also. An example could be that I know that stress and being poor causes a lot of violence. By this I am pretty sure that if there were less poor people and less stress then there would be less violence.[/QUOTE]
Stress and being poor in themselves are no guarantee of violence. Being unable to improve your condition, or having that ability severely curtailed (read: oppression) will greatly magnify the potential for violent reaction.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~John F. Kennedy
[QUOTE]
[editline]3rd February 2011[/editline]
could you give me specific studies that shows that money is the only motivator or something like it.[/QUOTE]
I think you misunderstood my statement, as it discarded the monetary aspect in the first phrase. My point was that Zeitgeist selects only the points that promote the movement while disregarding any science that could be detrimental to said movement.
That is lying by omission. It is misleading at best, criminally negligent at worst. If the movement gains traction and leads to yet-another-oppressive-regime, I hold Jacques Fresco and company responsible for making forays outside of the mechanical engineering realm.
[QUOTE=Jookia;27844374]The stupidity, it burns.
As soon as the first movie claimed that 9/11 was an inside job, I stopped watching all together. Clearly the cult leader has a few screws loose.[/QUOTE]
Denying the potential of a conspiracy on base grounds that the people associated are 'whackos' provides the potential for an actual conspiracy to fester.
If you know there is something that they left out that went against it then please tell me what it is.
You say they only give science that supports them (like every other organization ever] But what did you want them to do talk about irrelevant or science that goes against them which you say there is? I mean they arnt going in to huge detail over some technology that doesnt exist that they say does or some horribly wrong thing about how environment effects a person unless you can show me that they did.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27845499]If you know there is something that they left out that went against it then please tell me what it is.
You say they only give science that supports them (like every other organization ever] But what did you want them to do talk about irrelevant or science that goes against them which you say there is? I mean they arnt going in to huge detail over some technology that doesnt exist that they say does or some horribly wrong thing about how environment effects a person unless you can show me that they did.[/QUOTE]
With developmental/social psychology, only the infancy through adolescent stages were focused on. There was no framework for adult psychological needs provided, which is why there has been so much debate over that in this thread.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychology_(psychology)[/url]
As mentioned in my gross analysis of the video a major concept of economics, diminishing returns, wasn't touched on at all. There were also blatant misrepresentations of some economic concepts that were offered and hardly any acknowledgement of economic history. Also, an economy 'resource-based' doesn't change the fact that it is another name for capitalism.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns[/url]
The video also neglected to support any clear reasoning for abolishment of government and monetary systems, preferring to surreptitiously sway the viewer into making tenuous inferences spontaneously based on the bits of logic carefully displayed. The problems with communism/fascism/socialism/totalitarianism are well known, and the failings of democracy are elegantly elucidated by way of the discursive dilemma.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discursive_dilemma[/url]
[QUOTE=miscreanity;27845974]With developmental/social psychology, only the infancy through adolescent stages were focused on. There was no framework for adult psychological needs provided, which is why there has been so much debate over that in this thread.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychology_(psychology[/url])
[/QUOTE]
The reason why that is was because the other movie and many other things they do focus on adults.
also the link didnt work.
[quote]The video also neglected to support any clear reasoning for abolishment of government and monetary systems[/quote]
Well I think it gave enough to say why we should abolish the monetary system. But if you dont think so the other movie does and the site gives many other reasons. I could put it in a sentence though. money creates greed and causes people to be poor. almost all crime is created directly due to money. I dont think I have to give you any detail on corperate greed from using slavery to paying people as little as possible or just simply for xbox live. Now the reason why we dont like think government will go out is because. think about it. government mostly just makes laws and does stuff with money.without money then most crime will go away really fast. The environmental effects of money will also go away after a while making crime very small. Of course we cant stop all crime within a day or anything but are more ways to stop crime then to simply put them in prison. I recommend that you watch the 2nd movie because it explains it better then me.
It was certainly an interesting watch, but nothing I haven't heard of - like probable causes of social issues, issues with limited resources, ect. I doubt that you would get people throwing money at a building, I really would like to see the planet turn towards a "wiser" use of resource.
As for their group, they seem a bit off for some reason. You can call me an indoctrinated subject or whatever, but the video was too sensationalist about the whole thing - it would have been a far better watch if they stuck with hard facts from "reliable" sources (Some of them seemed conspiracy nuts).
It would be nice to see theoretical costs - time, man power, money (even if they hate it), design - of construction of such cities and networks they speak of. If the cost was outlandish then it would require everyone literally throwing their money towards the problem, and even though I would consider myself open-minded, I doubt I would do that.
The cities certainly looked nice, but many cultures have different views on importance for free time, architecture, ect. How about current populations of cities. The ones shown in the video looked large enough for a few hundred thousand at best. What happens to the "mega-cities" of today? It would certainly be easier should we have a spare earth, as was the case in the video.
The next thing I worry about, for obvious reasons, is who would lead such cities, networks ect. Though they mention (on their site) that there would be little need for them, having organizational bodies would be extremely important for coordination. Even if they claim no government affiliation there would still be some need to determine who does what job in the society. Do people apply to a governmental institution? Are the systems privately run and you put in a resume?
With any system not all problems will vanish over night, even if people are inherently neutral (I still think that genetics is a considerable force in that regard, but no matter) the new society is still being populated (initially) by the same people here today - including the ones who will perpetuate some of the social issues today. So it would be an extremely long time until things "leveled out"
Now, on that matter, how do the people with these jobs not become "elite." Assuming education for all is not enough to ensure there are not "better" schools one can go to, just like today. So regardless of how equal things are designed, there will still be some people with more strings to pull, and his/her friends/family are more likely to become other people with strings.
[b]In short:[/b] Decent, but hindered by sensationalism and lack of detail of implementation of realistic problems given in movie.
[QUOTE=bord2tears;27846477]having organizational bodies would be extremely important for coordination.[/QUOTE]
There would still be organization. If someone wants to start something like curing a diseases, finding a solution to an energy problem or anything else sure there would be someone people what to do to help. But its nothing like some guy making people do things. and I would agree that the movie was pretty bare bones. I guess they didnt want to make a 6 hour movie. You could look up the venus project or other stuff yourself though if feel like it though.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27846930]There would still be organization. If someone wants to start something like curing a diseases, finding a solution to an energy problem or anything else sure there would be someone people what to do to help. But its nothing like some guy making people do things. and I would agree that the movie was pretty bare bones. I guess they didnt want to make a 6 hour movie. You could look up the venus project or other stuff yourself though if feel like it though.[/QUOTE]
Ok, but since this society is purely based on resource distribution and sustainability, who decides what research gets priority should the resource "budget" not fit everything?
I agree about the "6 hour" but, as it was quite long as it is, but again they could have cut out at least 30 minutes of useless "flare" use for emotional response, and replace it with details of implementation - if only an over arching view of structure, election processes, inter-city political rules, laws and limitation systems. In 30 minutes you can understand the basics of the U.S. political system, since this is supposedly a much more minimalistic approach this should be easier to do so.
Now, on their [url="http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28&Itemid=65#6"]website[/url]:
[quote]...They will [b]not dictate the policies or have any more advantage than other people[/b]. Their job will be to carry out the restoration of the environment to near natural conditions as possible on land and in the sea. They will also [b]economically layout the most efficient way to manage transportation, agriculture, city planning, and production.[/b] This too is always in the process of modification and updating to fit the needs of an ever-changing civilization. There are no final frontiers.[/quote]
It is great to say "they will not dictate the policies or have any more advantage than other people." Certainly you will have many people who wish to do good, I certainly would work.
However, the ability to manage such important tasks IS an advantage. These are the people who determine who gets what in the way of resource for "extra-curricular" activities. In essence, we are replacing the rich having monetary power with the intelligent having power over the [b]resource currency[/b].
[QUOTE=bord2tears;27847202]Ok, but since this society is purely based on resource distribution and sustainability, who decides what research gets priority should the resource "budget" not fit everything?
I agree about the "6 hour" but, as it was quite long as it is, but again they could have cut out at least 30 minutes of useless "flare" use for emotional response, and replace it with details of implementation - if only an over arching view of structure, election processes, inter-city political rules, laws and limitation systems. In 30 minutes you can understand the basics of the U.S. political system, since this is supposedly a much more minimalistic approach this should be easier to do so.
Now, on their [url="http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28&Itemid=65#6"]website[/url]:
It is great to say "they will not dictate the policies or have any more advantage than other people." Certainly you will have many people who wish to do good, I certainly would work.
However, the ability to manage such important tasks IS an advantage. These are the people who determine who gets what in the way of resource for "extra-curricular" activities. In essence, we are replacing the rich having monetary power with the intelligent having power over the [b]resource currency[/b].[/QUOTE]
Exactly - there's scant detail, no logistics. There isn't even an explicit breakdown of how the end result works, just a vague notion that synergy saves us all. And if you can find anything on the collection of sites that points to a cohesive, focused and detail-oriented plan for how to get there other than "just trust us", I'll be pleasantly surprised.
Yes, it's replacing an asset elite with a technocratic elite while changing the name for the monetary system. Isomorphisms abound.
@sillypiggy: Got it?
OH GOD THIS CHANGED MY LIFE I HAVE A NEW VIEW ON THE WORLD
haha, just kidding this movie is fucking stupid
[QUOTE=bord2tears;27847202]However, the ability to manage such important tasks IS an advantage. These are the people who determine who gets what in the way of resource for "extra-curricular" activities.[/QUOTE]
They dont determine who gets what at all. People get the resources they want. no one person goes ahead of a person. so no one would be in power of resources really. Now for the task thing. Most scientific research doesn't cost that many resources. But you cant research something until you get enough people to help you do it. so there is going to be more people trying to stop cancer then there is people willing to stop something stupid like belly button lint or something. What we need to solve will come berfore what we would like to of course.
[editline]4th February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=miscreanity;27847398]Yes, it's replacing an asset elite with a technocratic elite while changing the name for the monetary system. Isomorphisms abound.
[/QUOTE]
Just trust us? the person who originally designed knows he wont be alive to see it so its not going to be him telling people exactly what to do. Sure it doesnt give to much information about the transition but since we dont know exactly what the world will be like if people ever decide to do this so we dont say exactly how it will happen. We do give technologies that we have today that would be able to do it though.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27863279]Just trust us?[/QUOTE]
No? You and neither does your cult leader know how to run the world. Believe it or not, if something like this were possible, it'd happen. But it's not.
Thats not an argument at all. If democracy is so great we would have we would already be using it says the king. Also this cult leader thing. First I wouldnt say there was a "ruler" of the venus project. There are people who helped make the movie, wrote the movie, the guy that came up with the venus project and such but I dont believe everything they say. This is just a blanket statement you used because the idea is small.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27863279]They dont determine who gets what at all. People get the resources they want. no one person goes ahead of a person. so no one would be in power of resources really. Now for the task thing. Most scientific research doesn't cost that many resources. But you cant research something until you get enough people to help you do it. so there is going to be more people trying to stop cancer then there is people willing to stop something stupid like belly button lint or something. What we need to solve will come berfore what we would like to of course.[/QUOTE]
Study how a CPU operates for an education in how a resource-based society would work, then tell me it wouldn't need some system for managing which resources go where. Equate instructions with people making requests, and order execution as the returned product. Limitations still exist on the resources themselves, even when billions of electrons are the raw material.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_processing_unit#Operation[/url]
And tell the LHC funding that research doesn't cost much, or the doctoral student who has to spend half his time writing grant requests...
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Cost[/url]
[QUOTE]
[editline]4th February 2011[/editline]
Just trust us? the person who originally designed knows he wont be alive to see it so its not going to be him telling people exactly what to do. Sure it doesnt give to much information about the transition but since we dont know exactly what the world will be like if people ever decide to do this so we dont say exactly how it will happen. We do give technologies that we have today that would be able to do it though.[/QUOTE]
Even if Mr. Fresco were a reincarnation of Cincinnatus, you're right that he's probably going to croak soon. What happens if there's a power struggle then? Who takes the reigns, or tries to? What's to prevent anyone from gaining power before the almighty central computer dictates life on the global commune?
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnatus[/url]
Just because we have the technology doesn't mean it's realistically feasible yet. There are many more factors to consider than just whether the know-how exists.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
