# A Different "Economy"



## Tiramesu (Mar 20, 2011)

Here is an interesting perspective. Instinctively, i had to post it in under the NT community.
Enjoy, but please do not sh*t bricks.

Tell me what you think if you have already herd about it.


----------



## Holunder (May 11, 2010)

Nothing new really. Capitalism is evil, money is useless, we're all gonna die!!! Except when we install a global planned economy. Then everyone will work for free and share goods and everyone will be happy. But don't call us socialists.

Not that I didn't learn anything from the video - I didn't know that there actually exist covers of Yes songs.


----------



## Trainwreck (Sep 14, 2010)

If it's three hours of, "We're going to make manna magically fall from the heavens to feed everyone for free so that way we can all sit on our asses to cultivate the human spirit," then I don't want to hear it. The problem and driving force of all economics that is scarcity will always be around, despite Gene Roddenberry's pipe dream (I love Star Trek BTW). 

I have minor in philosophy and had to listen to every chain smoking, graffito tagging, wannabe escopetero hipster mindlessly spout off about this as though we had infinite resources and it was simply a matter of not wanting to share our magic food replicators with the rest of the world. I see a lot of starving African children on the pre-load image. The problems in Africa have simply to do with Africa not having enough natural resources and too many people. And if we inject resources into Africa they will just increase their population further to unnatural levels, they will become dependent on foreign aid, and once we pull that aid there will be even more children who now have _less_. Africa needs to reduce it's population and allow it's scant resources to be cultivated in ways that allow its people to prosper.

File:Fertility rate world map 2.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Granted, I did construct a strawman here based on everything I've ever heard hipsters say about Zeigheist, or whatever it is. But I'll take an INTJ's summary for truth over wasting three hours on something I've heard damn hipsters in between classes say over and over again.


----------



## hasenj (Sep 23, 2010)

@Trainwreck: I didn't watch the entire video myself, but I've watched the parts about money a long time ago.

It's not that capitalism is evil per se; it's that the monetary system is designed in such a way that humanity is enslaved to banks: banks create money out of loans, and then interest is applied to these loans, so the only way to pay these loans is to borrow even more, increasingly.

The same applies to countries: loans are given to poor countries, which makes them effectively slaves to the lender (the west). Multinational corporations come in and destroy the local economy, etc.

I'm making it very short and it sounds silly but the actual argument is actually very compelling and thought provoking.


----------



## topgun31 (Nov 23, 2010)

I've seen the whole thing before. I definitely support this type of economy and the one found in Star Trek (they're almost identical). If we had a chance to start from scratch, this would be the type of economy/culture I would foster. It is my ideal vision of the world, and IMO it's the most rational economy. The BIG problems with this ever being implemented is 1) people, in general, fear change - even for the better 2) OVERPOPULATION. the Earth has almost 7 billion people on the planet 3) People are predictably irrational 4) Currently, people are more focused on trivialities rather that self/societal-actualization, even if it leads to emptiness in the long run. Just look at any video of Black Friday and see the sheeple being led to the slaughter. which leads me to point number 5) The short-sightedness of humanity

Before this ever has a chance to happen, there would have to be a shit-storm like no other. Global population has to be reduced somehow and something terrible has to happen on an international scale. In that sort of event, people would actually wake up from their trivialities and become focused on what matters. Furthermore, there would be an international collective memory. Imagine the ending from the movie "Watchmen" but on a global scale. Something like that. In the near-future, I can't see this ever happening. In a couple hundred years, maybe. I hope so, but only time will tell...


----------



## Trainwreck (Sep 14, 2010)

hasenj said:


> @Trainwreck: I didn't watch the entire video myself, but I've watched the parts about money a long time ago.
> 
> It's not that capitalism is evil per se; it's that the monetary system is designed in such a way that humanity is enslaved to banks: banks create money out of loans, and then interest is applied to these loans, so the only way to pay these loans is to borrow even more, increasingly.
> 
> ...


I agree with you on the whole debt issue, and I think a savings based economy is a much better one, but calling people "slaves" to the banks is a bit of a stretch. If slavery is having to make payments every month, such as interest, then we're slaves to our own government by virtue of being born into the system and paying taxes. At least with the banks you have a choice not to sign the loan application, unless your government took out a loan and is using your tax money to pay back a loan that may have been brokered by your government before you were even born, which again, roots back to the government, and it's potential abuses through controlling other peoples' money. 

It's a two way street on the free market, not so much with the government who can take your money and give it to evil banks. In the free market, ie, true capitalism, if people want to let their own greed enslave them to paying for a fancy house, I say fuck 'em, they brought it upon themselves, but I don't see why my tax dollars should have to finance other peoples' poor decisions without my say so.


----------



## hasenj (Sep 23, 2010)

Actually I'm now watching this movie. It's not the same I watched before. This one seems to be actually criticizing free market. Can't make a comment yet as I haven't finished watching.

Back to the debt point:



> At least with the banks you have a choice not to sign the loan application, unless your government took out a loan


That's the point. *all* money is debt. If you have money in your pocket, it's because someone took a loan and then spent the money and it kept changing hands until it got to you.

All governments are *deep* in debt, and their debts just keep increasing; there's no other way to finance themselves.


----------



## Holunder (May 11, 2010)

hasenj said:


> It's not that capitalism is evil per se; it's that the monetary system is designed in such a way that humanity is enslaved to banks: banks create money out of loans, and then interest is applied to these loans, so the only way to pay these loans is to borrow even more, increasingly.


The money in a country with a free market is always a rough equivalent of the goods in it (both material and virtual, like knowledge). Increasing the amount of money via interest encourages an increase in produced goods, and therefore economy growth. Whatever increase in available money is not made up by increase of production is covered by inflation, decreasing the amount of money by making it worth less. Inflation, on the other hand, encourages investing money instead of just saving it, which again boosts the economy.
What you call slavery is simple interdependence, which is the basis of an advanced society. You could probably live completely independent of others, producing everything you need yourself, but progress is made by specialization. You can produce your own food, but you can't build a computer and a car in your spare time. (If you have spare time, that is. Agriculture is time consuming.) In the end, this interdependency has created a lot more security and freedom.




topgun31 said:


> I've seen the whole thing before. I definitely support this type of economy and the one found in Star Trek (they're almost identical). If we had a chance to start from scratch, this would be the type of economy/culture I would foster. It is my ideal vision of the world, and IMO it's the most rational economy. The BIG problems with this ever being implemented is 1) people, in general, fear change - even for the better 2) OVERPOPULATION. the Earth has almost 7 billion people on the planet 3) People are predictably irrational 4) Currently, people are more focused on trivialities rather that self/societal-actualization, even if it leads to emptiness in the long run. Just look at any video of Black Friday and see the sheeple being led to the slaughter. which leads me to point number 5) The short-sightedness of humanity


Personally, I think this vision of a perfect economy is another example of the short-sightedness of humanity. Because it's simply not gonna work. Not only are people just not like that and will never be, no matter what happens, this vision would mean abandoning everything that made us as prosperous as we are now. The principle of evolution - the concept best adapted to circumstances wins over the less well adapted - is the most efficient basis of development. It's so efficient that it is used in actual computer programming, which is kind of ironic, as the film suggests overcoming the evolutionary principle by modeling production on computers, when the program would probably use that very principle. That is, as soon as we found a model that sufficiently well describes reality, which ought to prove somewhat difficult, and have the actual processing power to balance out billions of variables...


----------



## Trainwreck (Sep 14, 2010)

hasenj said:


> Actually I'm now watching this movie. It's not the same I watched before. This one seems to be actually criticizing free market. Can't make a comment yet as I haven't finished watching.
> 
> Back to the debt point:
> 
> ...


The money is not debt if something useful and entrepreneurial is being done with it, which is the inherent nature of most banks. You take out a loan to buy a truck so that your landscaping business can take on more customers. The dealership's employees receive money for their services that they spend on other services; the guy with the truck provides more services with the truck.

But when you have a Federal Reserve engaged in "quantitative easing" or just printing off more fucking money, then you run into problems.


----------



## hasenj (Sep 23, 2010)

@Holunder: the idea is the system makes you a slave to the Banks. Not you personally, and not in a direct way, but the Central Bank basically owns everything one way or another.

When you produce new goods, no one can buy these good unless they have money, which again has to be borrowed.

Consider an economic depression: there people are still there, the resources are still there, but somehow the money is not there and suddenly everything comes to a screeching halt. When you allow a private Bank to control your money system, you're giving it control over your sovereignty.

Also, I'd be wary of taking the capitalism/evolution ideas to an extreme, as they can have catastrophic results: YouTube - Code Geass Emperor speech(English)


----------



## Holunder (May 11, 2010)

hasenj said:


> @Holunder: the idea is the system makes you a slave to the Banks. Not you personally, and not in a direct way, but the Central Bank basically owns everything one way or another.
> 
> When you produce new goods, no one can buy these good unless they have money, which again has to be borrowed.
> 
> Consider an economic depression: there people are still there, the resources are still there, but somehow the money is not there and suddenly everything comes to a screeching halt. When you allow a private Bank to control your money system, you're giving it control over your sovereignty.


The bank doesn't own anything because money isn't worth anything. It is just a physical representation of a promise to give you something. It is based on consensus. The banks are responsible for managing the flow of money, but that doesn't mean that gives them any more power than people in general have over other people. If you say you are a slave to the banks, aren't you even more a slave to food? If you don't eat, you will die. Aren't you a slave to the baker then, because if he doesn't sell you bread, you will die? It is a mistake to think that complete freedom exists. We all depend on the circumstances. But the system we have nowadays in the west, including the money system, gives us a lot more freedom than anyone had since the beginning of humankind - we have free time, and we don't have to fear to starve, even in a crisis.




> Also, I'd be wary of taking the capitalism/evolution ideas to an extreme, as they can have catastrophic results: YouTube - Code Geass Emperor speech(English)


That is not taking evolution to an extreme, it is a very one-sided look on evolution. It is ignoring the positive effect of cooperative systems, which can also be observed in nature.


----------



## topgun31 (Nov 23, 2010)

Holunder said:


> Personally, I think this vision of a perfect economy is another example of the short-sightedness of humanity. Because it's simply not gonna work. Not only are people just not like that and will never be, no matter what happens, this vision would mean abandoning everything that made us as prosperous as we are now. The principle of evolution - the concept best adapted to circumstances wins over the less well adapted - is the most efficient basis of development.


EXACTLY. One of the main principles of systems analysis is Gall's Law - a complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. This is why I believe we'll never see a Resource Based Economy in our life time (nor should we - we, as a whole, just aren't prepared for it), unless something drastic happens. There's just far too many requirements - technological, cultural, sociological - that have to be implemented first before this ever happens. However, this doesn't mean that elements of a resource-based economy will never be implemented. Some elements of that system are far too logical to be ignored completely.


----------



## NiDBiLD (Apr 1, 2010)

Sounds reasonable. One problem, though: I find that the movie answers the question "what" but not "how".

There is no step-by-step plan. There's no strategy. Only a model of a better society. For something like this to gain ground, there has to be a plan and a group that implements it.

But really, when you think about it... money is not "natural". It's just a system of resource distribution, like rationing. It's an inefficient system for resource distribution, as it allows for inequality between the haves and the have-nots. Since it's an inefficient system, it should be rebuilt into something better, that allows for a greater amount of human well being.


----------



## Trainwreck (Sep 14, 2010)

NiDBiLD said:


> Sounds reasonable. One problem, though: I find that the movie answers the question "what" but not "how".
> 
> There is no step-by-step plan. There's no strategy. Only a model of a better society. For something like this to gain ground, there has to be a plan and a group that implements it.
> 
> But really, when you think about it... money is not "natural". It's just a system of resource distribution, like rationing. It's an inefficient system for resource distribution, as it allows for inequality between the haves and the have-nots. Since it's an inefficient system, it should be rebuilt into something better, that allows for a greater amount of human well being.


Woah... saying money isn't efficient?? Think about the alternatives here, a barter based system??


----------



## hasenj (Sep 23, 2010)

The first zeitgeist movie was much better when it talked about money.

I find the venus project rather ridiculous, and the facts in this new movie end up lost in the middle of all the propaganda. It's interesting how they use (what seems to be) a hypnotizing background music and visuals.

The problem with the current monetary system basically boils down to interest IMO. Fractional Reserve banking seems like legalized fraud, and the application of interest on loans is what fuels this fraud.

Money should be like the Military: something that the government controls. It's part of sovereignty.

There are other movies that talk about the money problem ("Money as Debt", "Money Masters", and perhaps others) and some of them provide a hint to possible solutions. I don't exactly remember what they were though; it's been a long time.

One possible solution is that Banks become government controlled, they lend money to citizens - without interest.

Here are some of them other movies:






[video=google;-2550156453790090544]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2550156453790090544"[/video] 






[video=google;-515319560256183936]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936"[/video]


----------



## NiDBiLD (Apr 1, 2010)

Trainwreck said:


> Woah... saying money isn't efficient?? Think about the alternatives here, a barter based system??


Barter is even less efficient. Trade as a concept is inefficient and stupid since it allows for a concentration of capital in the hands of few, while the greater number is starving.

I'm thinking about rationing. Last time we tried that, we had almost no automation, and much more primitive computers. A rationing system built with the technology of today would work a lot smoother. In a rationing system, all we have to take into account is the amount of available natural resources, not the amount of value-tokens.

You could have automated factories connected to terminals in people's homes. People order the stuff they want, and a computer keeps check of the amount of used resources and available resources for each person. It's a system that's fair and equal, and that can have built in methods for handling the impact on nature.

With construction automated, the need for working would be significantly smaller. A workforce made of young adults doing mandatory social service for a few years of their lives could keep society going. People could volunteer as teachers, experts and researchers when they become older.

One could keep people loyal to this system by indoctrination and education, just like we are indoctrinated into a monetary system today. For example, the mandatory social service could be ritualized as a rite of passage, and excessive use of resources could be considered deeply immoral.


----------



## noexcuses (Aug 5, 2009)

Trainwreck said:


> Woah... saying money isn't efficient?? Think about the alternatives here, a barter based system??


Money is terribly inefficient - it requires a ridiculous amount of outside pressure to keep flowing, and to keep the distribution of goods steady. It has the annoyingly unfortunate tendency to be valued in and of itself by other people, when it has no value beyond a medium of exchange. Money that is not moving is a complete drag on the economy, and unfortunately, the generally risk-averse orientation of humans ensures that the prevention of hoarding will be a constant struggle.


----------



## Trainwreck (Sep 14, 2010)

NiDBiLD said:


> Barter is even less efficient. Trade as a concept is inefficient and stupid since it allows for a concentration of capital in the hands of few, while the greater number is starving.


I mentioned barter to demonstrate that the alternative to money is even more inefficient, and seeing as we live in a world largely comprised of relativities, I figured a simple juxtaposition would convey my point rather clearly that money has opened up economic vistas previously unrealized in the absence of money.



NiDBiLD said:


> I'm thinking about rationing. Last time we tried that, we had almost no automation, and much more primitive computers. A rationing system built with the technology of today would work a lot smoother. In a rationing system, all we have to take into account is the amount of available natural resources, not the amount of value-tokens.
> 
> You could have automated factories connected to terminals in people's homes. People order the stuff they want, and a computer keeps check of the amount of used resources and available resources for each person. It's a system that's fair and equal, and that can have built in methods for handling the impact on nature.
> 
> ...


This, I don't even know where to begin refuting this, other than that it is a fantasy rife with areas for exploitation among other moral hazards. A socialist technocracy won't solve anything. Who decides the rationing? Powerful politicians? I'm to assume the standard argumentation for such systems: that we must combat humanities lust for _power_ and _wealth_. Yet, I am also to assume that this is to be done by establishing a _power_ful system of governing that can redistribute _wealth_. Yeah, don't call me asking for help when you're stuck with another Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Nicolae Ceauescu, or etc because my only words will be a very heartfelt, "I told you so." History is against you in every way, shape and form in arguing this, as is basic human psychology, and logic. _All power corrupts, absolutely._



noexcuses said:


> Money is terribly inefficient - it requires a ridiculous amount of outside pressure to keep flowing, and to keep the distribution of goods steady. It has the annoyingly unfortunate tendency to be valued in and of itself by other people, when it has no value beyond a medium of exchange. Money that is not moving is a complete drag on the economy, and unfortunately, the generally risk-averse orientation of humans ensures that the prevention of hoarding will be a constant struggle.


What's more efficient? The other gentleman suggested we just ration things out to people. How is a budget to be kept by such an administration? What value will they attach to things? Or will the administration just give out things as it pleases?


----------



## noexcuses (Aug 5, 2009)

Trainwreck said:


> What's more efficient? The other gentleman suggested we just ration things out to people. How is a budget to be kept by such an administration? What value will they attach to things? Or will the administration just give out things as it pleases?


That wasn't a comparative statement. It was simply pointing out that money has many points of inefficiency as a means of exchange. We don't know how effective a pure command economy could be - any that have existed were constantly subverted by forces outside their control. For example, the Soviet system wasn't done in by internal corruption or any of the propagandistic crap that's taught in the West. Instead, it collapsed because the price of oil crashed in the mid-'80s, and potential creditor nations left it hanging.


----------



## Trainwreck (Sep 14, 2010)

noexcuses said:


> That wasn't a comparative statement. It was simply pointing out that money has many points of inefficiency as a means of exchange. We don't know how effective a pure command economy could be - any that have existed were constantly subverted by forces outside their control. For example, the Soviet system wasn't done in by internal corruption or any of the propagandistic crap that's taught in the West. Instead, it collapsed because the price of oil crashed in the mid-'80s, and potential creditor nations left it hanging.


We've encountered many command economies and their leaders have killed an estimated 110,000,000 of their own people. Furthermore, leave it to idiotic bureaucrats to hinge the viability of their entire system upon oil prices, their failure is more proof such systems should be avoided, if millions of people dying wasn't proof enough that such systems are horrible.


----------



## noexcuses (Aug 5, 2009)

Trainwreck said:


> We've encountered many command economies and their leaders have killed an estimated 110,000,000 of their own people. Furthermore, leave it to idiotic bureaucrats to hinge the viability of their entire system upon oil prices, their failure is more proof such systems should be avoided, if millions of people dying wasn't proof enough that such systems are horrible.


You sell what you have. Russia had oil, and lots of it, and not a whole lot else. It wasn't that they didn't want to diversify their economy, it was that quite literally, they had nothing else that would work. A country is only as rich as the raw materials it has allows it to be.

The statistic you threw in there, while a nice bit of emotional appeal, is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

Every one of those command economies had hostile neighbors that actively sought to undermine whatever advantage those economies may have had. Capitalist economies have the most effective propaganda machine available to them - advertising. So we think about how great it is that this computer is available to us, and how great the capitalist economy is, without having to think about that kid in the Congo who had his hand cut off because he wasn't mining semiconductor material fast enough. We don't have to think about the US-supported right-wing death squads that terrorized Central America during the '80s to make sure that Americans didn't have to give land back to the country's people, and that the price of bananas stayed low. We simply marvel at the choices we have in this "free" economy, without having to think about the human costs. And then, when it finally becomes more profitable to fire a third of the workforce, we have just as little choice as a person in that command economy.

Leave it to psychopath capitalists to screw millions over just to make an extra buck, and then come crying to the government for bailouts, and threatening economic collapse when they don't get their way.


----------



## Trainwreck (Sep 14, 2010)

noexcuses said:


> The statistic you threw in there, while a nice bit of emotional appeal, is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.


Human lives aren't germane to a discussion regarding human prosperity and economic systems thereof? You're advocating a system of governance that has a track record of nothing but failure and tragedy. John D Rockefeller, arguably the worst free market tyrant in history, his worst atrocity was charging people too much for a can of oil. Compare that to what Mao Zedong has done. Also, it's funny that you'd chide someone for allegedly making an emotional appeal while launching a much more overwrought, and less supported by fact, emotional campaign of your own as the primary bulk of your rejoinder. It's not good to make fun of a tactic, and then employ it yourself in the very next paragraph, unless it's for the purposes of satire.



noexcuses said:


> Every one of those command economies had hostile neighbors that actively sought to undermine whatever advantage those economies may have had.


Next you're going to tell me poor ol' North Korea is being victimized by South Korea, a country that is one of the pound for pound best economically right now, and coincidentally one of the freest marketed countries in the world? Lord, North Korea is a damned anchor and South Korea is still a boon for the global economy.



noexcuses said:


> Capitalist economies have the most effective propaganda machine available to them - advertising.


Oh no, people are buying things, the horror that has resulted from being brainwashed to buy a _Wacky Wall Walker_ for my cousin's birthday present, just horrifyingly awful.



noexcuses said:


> So we think about how great it is that this computer is available to us, and how great the capitalist economy is, without having to think about that kid in the Congo who had his hand cut off because he wasn't mining semiconductor material fast enough. We don't have to think about the US-supported right-wing death squads that terrorized Central America during the '80s to make sure that Americans didn't have to give land back to the country's people, and that the price of bananas stayed low. We simply marvel at the choices we have in this "free" economy, without having to think about the human costs. And then, when it finally becomes more profitable to fire a third of the workforce, we have just as little choice as a person in that command economy.
> 
> Leave it to psychopath capitalists to screw millions over just to make an extra buck, and then come crying to the government for bailouts, and threatening economic collapse when they don't get their way.


All of those actions were done on behalf of the U.S. _Government_ because lobbyists in _congress_ pushed for it. A corporation may have placed the hit, but who do you think carried it out? And where do you think the money for this 'right wing death squad' came from? Taxes. Who collects those taxes? Damn politicians collect taxes, the people you'd trust with full control of an economy, and yet you complain of what they're capable of when only controlling a portion of the U.S. economy? 

An even more powerful government can do much worse (110,000,000 dead). It will always corrupt. Obamacare was written by and for the health insurance _companies_, it's a socialist policy backed by corporations who have infiltrated a powerful government, a government that is very appealing to assholes. Pricks love power. Once the government forced John D Rockefeller to let off his stranglehold on the U.S. he immediately infiltrated government, and that's why his kids are pulling the strings today because the government became more powerful.

I don't see how people can support power like this that's just rife for abuse, in spite of all the evidence that these powerful systems appeal to the very people they are meant to punish. I will never understand how people can think that this shit will work time and time again. The government should exist only to protect the freedoms of its citizens; when left with that power, and no more, injustices like you mentioned above cannot occur, which includes the killing of 110,000,000 people by their own communist government. But if you'd rather worry about paying too much for a can of oil, I don't know what else there is to say.

PS - I don't support bailouts to businesses that fail, either.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

Can anyone who supports a zeitgeist like movement propose just one small policy change that isn't supported by an already exiting political group and that will have a net benefit?

(It's not rhetorical, I'm genuinely curious, because all that that video seemed to propose was "We should live in paradise.") roud:


----------



## Arbitrator (Mar 31, 2010)

The man says ''money is debt''. In the context of today if you make an equation the total amount of money available vs the amount of debts to be payed. Yes then there is insufficient money.

But, money as a token system on its self is not based on debt. its based on generalised value which objects are given. And this just functions as a lubricant for trade. So instead a farmer has to trade a cow for say X kilo of grain. He can use money that represents the value of the cow to buy the grain. etc. So money inherently is not debt.


----------



## Monkey King (Nov 16, 2010)

Watched the whole thing---- It's like my major in urban planning was summarized in 3 hours in what took 3 years to complete. I have more to say; but I'm in dire need of sleep. So I'll come back to this.


----------



## sarek (May 20, 2010)

Actually I have recently joined up with zeitgeist myself because their ideas on RBE are an almost exact match for the ones I have been thinking about for almost thirty years now.

This system will require a complete paradigm change. But it is not a luxury, it is a necessity. A highly evolved civilisation can not survive in the long run on the basis of inequality and inefficiency.


----------



## Holunder (May 11, 2010)

sarek said:


> Actually I have recently joined up with zeitgeist myself because their ideas on RBE are an almost exact match for the ones I have been thinking about for almost thirty years now.
> 
> This system will require a complete paradigm change. But it is not a luxury, it is a necessity. A highly evolved civilisation can not survive in the long run on the basis of inequality and inefficiency.


Isn't that a bit paradoxical? You say a highly _evolved_ civilization, that is a civilization that owes its success to the principle of evolution, can no longer exist on the basis of that exact same principle. What makes you think that? Why at exactly this point? And if it is inevitable, why hasn't it already happened by itself?

I'd also like to know how you propose to achieve that paradigm change without the use of suppression and tyranny.


----------



## Arbitrator (Mar 31, 2010)

Thing is, capitalism has pros and cons.
Pros: it is proven to be the best system (untill now) to bring wealth to a country.
Cons: it has a lot of critical flaws which have to be solved.

Conclusion: capitalism will change to a more ''social'' system if those flaws are abolished.
Simply introducing a more ''utopian'' system isn't going to work. 
Mankind has to evolve its self and its economic system inorder to live in a better world.


----------



## sarek (May 20, 2010)

Holunder said:


> Isn't that a bit paradoxical? You say a highly _evolved_ civilization, that is a civilization that owes its success to the principle of evolution, can no longer exist on the basis of that exact same principle. What makes you think that? Why at exactly this point? And if it is inevitable, why hasn't it already happened by itself?
> 
> I'd also like to know how you propose to achieve that paradigm change without the use of suppression and tyranny.


That is correct. An inherent paradox exists. There is a point at which a civilisation will have to free itself from the natural laws of evolution. That is the point where we cease to be animals and become humans for the first time. This requires the greatest paradigm change in the history of all life on Earth. It is our final exam which we may pass or fail.

EDIT: you asked why now. The reason is that survival of the fittest works perfectly well in a reasonably open growth space. And until now our own world still had lots of room for economic and technological expansion. But now our technology is beginning to enable us to fill up our complete ecosystem with no more headroom to spare. We have inflated ourself to the point of bursting the walls of our cage.

An emerging civilisation will either have to make that change, or perish. We as humanity are right now rapidly approaching the point where that choice must be made. The moment of choice is determined by the culmination of the greatest resource crisis in the history of mankind with the technological singularity(or close approximation thereof). It is a dynamically unstable situation, that if left unresolved can ultimately have only one outcome: the crash of civilisation as we know it.

I hope the change can be a bottom up process more than a top down one. However, the most likely outcome is a cataclysmic change with hopefully a better world at the end of it. 

There is more involved than simply the abolishment of money as the basis of our economic system. Far more important is an accompanying evolution in human ethics. The change to an RBE will help satisfy the ground levels of Maslov's pyramid for all humans and enable us to focus on more important issues than materialism.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

sarek said:


> That is correct. An inherent paradox exists. There is a point at which a civilisation will have to free itself from the natural laws of evolution. That is the point where we cease to be animals and become humans for the first time. This requires the greatest paradigm change in the history of all life on Earth. It is our final exam which we may pass or fail.
> 
> EDIT: you asked why now. The reason is that survival of the fittest works perfectly well in a reasonably open growth space. And until now our own world still had lots of room for economic and technological expansion. But now our technology is beginning to enable us to fill up our complete ecosystem with no more headroom to spare. We have inflated ourself to the point of bursting the walls of our cage.
> 
> ...


This is starting to sound cultish to me.


----------



## Holunder (May 11, 2010)

sarek said:


> That is correct. An inherent paradox exists. There is a point at which a civilisation will have to free itself from the natural laws of evolution.


Why? You say that as if that was the clearest thing in the world, when it is anything but. Is there any empirical evidence for this? Has anyone tried anything like this and succeeded? If there's anything to learn from the last century, it's that trying out revolutionary new societal systems very likely ends in misery and lots of dead people. Why should we do that again when there's no indication whatsoever it will actually work?




> That is the point where we cease to be animals and become humans for the first time.


This is rather disquieting. Are the people that don't follow your movement mere animals? Will you look down on them? Pity them? Or worse?
Why were the Germans able to kill all those Jews? How could the Hutu just set out and kill their Tutsi neighbors? Because they didn't see them as humans. It's true we are all animals. But we are also all humans. Don't ever question that.




> EDIT: you asked why now. The reason is that survival of the fittest works perfectly well in a reasonably open growth space. And until now our own world still had lots of room for economic and technological expansion. But now our technology is beginning to enable us to fill up our complete ecosystem with no more headroom to spare. We have inflated ourself to the point of bursting the walls of our cage.
> 
> An emerging civilisation will either have to make that change, or perish. We as humanity are right now rapidly approaching the point where that choice must be made. The moment of choice is determined by the culmination of the greatest resource crisis in the history of mankind with the technological singularity(or close approximation thereof). It is a dynamically unstable situation, that if left unresolved can ultimately have only one outcome: the crash of civilisation as we know it.


At the turn of the last century, people feared that traffic in the cities could not increase because of the overwhelming amount of horse manure - and then the car was introduced. Right to the point the Berlin wall fell, many believed the Iron Curtain would stay forever. For a long time, in Germany it was reported that the acid rain was killing all the trees - the woods are still here. Peak oil was prophesied for the year 2000 - we're still not there.

Let's face it, our predictions of the future aren't very reliable - they are usually made redundant by progress. That's why I don't fear the end of civilization as we know it. If it comes, it will most likely come in a form we didn't anticipate. As far as we can see from history, things in general are moving shakily, but steadily forward, despite never being stable. And there is always room to expand, even if it's in the abstract realm of knowledge.

Our time may seem special to us, but in the end it is just a piece of history, not the glorious reversal of everything we are into a race of super ethical beings.




> There is more involved than simply the abolishment of money as the basis of our economic system. Far more important is an accompanying evolution in human ethics. The change to an RBE will help satisfy the ground levels of Maslov's pyramid for all humans and enable us to focus on more important issues than materialism.


Again, that is just a conjecture that has never been proved. And what about the people who refuse to abandon materialism for your glorious enlightenment? (Yes, they will be there.) Your vision of the future doesn't take into account the reality of how people actually are. You cannot suppose that they will all change just because you think it's the right thing to do.


----------



## Tiramesu (Mar 20, 2011)

*Let's economize lives.*

*@Holunder * 
_Nothing new really. Capitalism is evil, money is useless, we're all gonna die!!! Except when we install a global planned economy. Then everyone will work for free and share goods and everyone will be happy. But don't call us socialists._


Must it be capitalism, communism or any other political structure, all of them are invalid. A political structure is unsustainable due to our finite resources. It is simply irrelevant to continue wasting them and normalizing the phenomena. Furthermore, the governing groups of our social order are split into politics and business. Whenever something goes wrong, one group blames it on another. Ie: The conservatives blame it on the republicans. To almost everyone, this appears to be natural. Even if our world has growing unemployment, growing poverty, growing mental health disorders, drug abuse, rare resource depletion, overall environmental degradation, violence and war propensities, systemic global debt defaults, accelerated inflation, atmospheric destabilization and many other social and ecological problems. What if the very game we play is itself unsustainable and destructive? 








It is not about a global planned economy, there are many "similar" yet not so similar movements that support a global planned economy. It is not a political economy, it is not a monetary economy. It is a resource-based economy. In that economy no one is obligated to work. Working for free is contextually wrong when we truly think about it. Contributing to preserve our evolving society would be a better perspective. Sharing is indeed involved in the process. Ie : For one it is irrelevant to keep his car stored 90% of the time. Why would we not share instead of wasting? Because wasting keeps our system alive. 



People would say that wasting is indeed a way of progressing because if we do it step by step, the wastes that we had and thought were overwhelming became minimal at this point. Then we should keep doing that while technology progresses and takes us to the next level. Sad news, our economy limits our technological progress and does not clean up for the waste it makes. Therefore there must be a limit, yet it is not determined. That said, it is important to take action as soon as we can.

Global Warming Skeptics Vs. Science [Pic] | I Am Bored


Again, this is not a political system. There can be objective/so called "democratic" decision making since everyone would be more civilized and less argumentative. 





 
*
*
*@topgun31 * 
_The BIG problems with this ever being implemented is 1) people, in general, fear change - even for the better 2) OVERPOPULATION. the Earth has almost 7 billion people on the planet 3) People are predictably irrational 4) Currently, people are more focused on trivialities rather that self/societal-actualization, even if it leads to emptiness in the long run. Just look at any video of Black Friday and see the sheeple being led to the slaughter. which leads me to point number 5) The short-sightedness of humanity _



1)Yes, there is such thing called homeostasis.
2)Indeed, but it is much more of a problem if this population keeps growing with ignorance. 
3)I have to agree that most of us are victims of culture. This is why i defend critical judgment. The value of knowledge before faith. I know you might pick me up on that one.
4)Yes, then again we are at an "age of thinking". We are aware of many things, more aware than ever before. This is why i believe that if we spread the word, people will have a greater chance of initiating actions. Actions that will benefit us in the long run.
5)Yes and no. Most of us follow like victims of culture. Then again, i believe that our consciousness will help, as leaders emerge from drastic times.







*@Trainwreck * 
_If slavery is having to make payments every month, such as interest, then we're slaves to our own government by virtue of being born into the system and paying taxes. At least with the banks you have a choice not to sign the loan application, unless your government took out a loan and is using your tax money to pay back a loan that may have been brokered by your government before you were even born, which again, roots back to the government, and it's potential abuses through controlling other peoples' money. _


Therefore it is sustainable for your children to be abused by banks. They will have to play the game like everyone else does. That is insanity. Why do we have to gamble at an age where technology can practically light the globe by itself? Automation has taken over our society since the great industrialization. Why would you make future generations work, do useless and repetitive tasks that are socially pointless? 
Because everyone has to work to earn it's piece of cake?





(there are actually 4 parts to it, about 7 minutes long each)



*@Holunder * 
_The money in a country with a free market is always a rough equivalent of the goods in it (both material and virtual, like knowledge). Increasing the amount of money via interest encourages an increase in produced goods, and therefore economy growth. Whatever increase in available money is not made up by increase of production is covered by inflation, decreasing the amount of money by making it worth less. Inflation, on the other hand, encourages investing money instead of just saving it, which again boosts the economy.
What you call slavery is simple interdependence, which is the basis of an advanced society. You could probably live completely independent of others, producing everything you need yourself, but progress is made by specialization. You can produce your own food, but you can't build a computer and a car in your spare time. (If you have spare time, that is. Agriculture is time consuming.) In the end, this interdependency has created a lot more security and freedom. _

_Personally, I think this vision of a perfect economy is another example of the short-sightedness of humanity. Because it's simply not gonna work. Not only are people just not like that and will never be, no matter what happens, this vision would mean abandoning everything that made us as prosperous as we are now. The principle of evolution - the concept best adapted to circumstances wins over the less well adapted - is the most efficient basis of development. It's so efficient that it is used in actual computer programming, which is kind of ironic, as the film suggests overcoming the evolutionary principle by modeling production on computers, when the program would probably use that very principle. That is, as soon as we found a model that sufficiently well describes reality, which ought to prove somewhat difficult, and have the actual processing power to balance out billions of variables..._


Economic growth as in increase of the GDP?
 Did you mean: Environmental genocide, mindless and wasteful consumption, increase in health services, terrorist prevention (try to figure out why), more poverty?
Well that must be okay because we have more security against terrorist attacks. More health problems to deal with, it's natural anyways. Wasteful consumption means that everything is okay, our economy is growing, like if it is logical to waste finite resources. There was never such thing as an environmental genocide and there will never be until we really see it.


Well... indeed as you said a resource-based economy is perfect, but wait a minute, it is not really that perfect since you can find it's flaws. I smell a critic #3.
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com...nena&func=view&catid=3&id=80641&Itemid=100114
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com...a&func=view&catid=231&id=329128&Itemid=100114

 *@Trainwreck * 
_The money is not debt if something useful and entrepreneurial is being done with it, which is the inherent nature of most banks. You take out a loan to buy a truck so that your landscaping business can take on more customers. The dealership's employees receive money for their services that they spend on other services; the guy with the truck provides more services with the truck.

But when you have a Federal Reserve engaged in "quantitative easing" or just printing off more fucking money, then you run into problems. _

How is that not going to happen anyways? Can you really fix that with multiple "band-aids"?

*@Holunder * 
_The bank doesn't own anything because money isn't worth anything. It is just a physical representation of a promise to give you something. It is based on consensus. The banks are responsible for managing the flow of money, but that doesn't mean that gives them any more power than people in general have over other people. If you say you are a slave to the banks, aren't you even more a slave to food? If you don't eat, you will die. Aren't you a slave to the baker then, because if he doesn't sell you bread, you will die? It is a mistake to think that complete freedom exists. We all depend on the circumstances. But the system we have nowadays in the west, including the money system, gives us a lot more freedom than anyone had since the beginning of humankind - we have free time, and we don't have to fear to starve, even in a crisis._

How do you explain that every other domain, except the social one has ever since progressed? The reality for power is quiet different. You can buy, sell, kill or help anyone with money nowadays. You always could i believe, prove me wrong. Philosophers living 2000 years ago would find it immoral, we do too. Still we continue.

If you do not eat. You will die, in fact. But that does not mean that our system should be considered natural. If we take a step back and take a look at the whole situation, we are only nurtured to think that we live in a friendly system. Nowadays we can notice that there are many flaws and that the system is trying to keep itself alive by hiding them. The system is trying to preserve itself. It's no better than religion during medieval times if you allow me to compare it.

*@topgun31 * 
_EXACTLY. One of the main principles of systems analysis is Gall's Law - a complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. This is why I believe we'll never see a Resource Based Economy in our life time (nor should we - we, as a whole, just aren't prepared for it), unless something drastic happens. There's just far too many requirements - technological, cultural, sociological - that have to be implemented first before this ever happens. However, this doesn't mean that elements of a resource-based economy will never be implemented. Some elements of that system are far too logical to be ignored completely. _


Technology will be adjusted in no time, but the social aspect is indeed a problem. But i believe that the greatest ideas just took time to swallow, intelligent people thought of ideas that would be adopted only 100 years later. At our stage, it might take us less time to adapt. People just need to see the possibility.




(6 parts of 8 minutes each)

*@NiDBiLD * 
_Sounds reasonable. One problem, though: I find that the movie answers the question "what" but not "how".

There is no step-by-step plan. There's no strategy. Only a model of a better society. For something like this to gain ground, there has to be a plan and a group that implements it.

But really, when you think about it... money is not "natural". It's just a system of resource distribution, like rationing. It's an inefficient system for resource distribution, as it allows for inequality between the haves and the have-nots. Since it's an inefficient system, it should be rebuilt into something better, that allows for a greater amount of human well being. 
_


You can always inform people about the ZM.

There is indeed no step by step guide, but you can find some guidelines on: The Venus Project

*@Trainwreck * 
_Woah... saying money isn't efficient?? Think about the alternatives here, a barter based system?? _

It is indeed a proposed solution. But then again, why would we work?

*@Trainwreck * 
_I mentioned barter to demonstrate that the alternative to money is even more inefficient, and seeing as we live in a world largely comprised of relativities, I figured a simple juxtaposition would convey my point rather clearly that money has opened up economic vistas previously unrealized in the absence of money. _

economic vistas = plans for mass destruction?
Now i know how it feels to be one of those "empirical leaders" Muahahhaha! 
Your argument is simply relative to your lack of information. But i have to agree that @_NiDBiLD_ 's "rite of passage" is not really much of a change.

*@Holunder * 
*Actually I have recently joined up with zeitgeist myself because their ideas on RBE are an almost exact match for the ones I have been thinking about for almost thirty years now.

This system will require a complete paradigm change. But it is not a luxury, it is a necessity. A highly evolved civilization can not survive in the long run on the basis of inequality and inefficiency.*


_Isn't that a bit paradoxical? You say a highly __evolved civilization, that is a civilization that owes its success to the principle of evolution, can no longer exist on the basis of that exact same principle. What makes you think that? Why at exactly this point? And if it is inevitable, why hasn't it already happened by itself?

I'd also like to know how you propose to achieve that paradigm change without the use of suppression and tyranny. 
_


We are not even near being a civilization. How are we an advanced society when we have not progressed since antiquity? Therefore this system will allow such progress, it will allow one to become master in many domains if not all, therefore civilized. 



Well informed and caring people will seek the best for their society and will spread the word. The Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project have informed enough people to advocate for what they believe best. Jacque Fresco said that many governments except the USA were very interested in his works. Therefore it is an intelligent approach. No need for stupid and pointless wars. 




*@Arbitrator * 
_Thing is, capitalism has pros and cons.
Pros: it is proven to be the best system (untill now) to bring wealth to a country.
Cons: it has a lot of critical flaws which have to be solved.

Conclusion: capitalism will change to a more ''social'' system if those flaws are abolished.
Simply introducing a more ''utopian'' system isn't going to work. 
Mankind has to evolve its self and its economic system inorder to live in a better world. _



It is indeed the best proven system to bring "monetary" wealth to it's country. You would suggest reintroducing his so called "opposed duality"? Well, you will be wasting time. Just like the URSS did. It is a good example in my opinion. Not the URSS, but the opposed duality. Meaning that you would just create another useless party. Like if they were of a use nowadays. Like if politicians were not businessmen. Like if a political change would help poverty (thousands of children dieing every day), consumption waste (An estimated 50 million tons of E-waste is produced each year), crimes (95% of them being related to money), etc...


Utopian? Our technical reality allows us to automate almost everything, soon even more. Our social structure is *outdated by hundreds of years*. Therefore it is normal you think that the concept is Utopian. Well, you just proved me right. Our so called economy has to focus on energy preservation and durability.



*@Holunder * 
*That is the point where we cease to be animals and become humans for the first time. * 
_This is rather disquieting. Are the people that don't follow your movement mere animals? Will you look down on them? Pity them? Or worse?
Why were the Germans able to kill all those Jews? How could the Hutu just set out and kill their Tutsi neighbors? Because they didn't see them as humans. It's true we are all animals. But we are also all humans. Don't ever question that. _



You do sound like a victim of culture there... I am only advocating this because it appears to be realistic and sustainable. Why shouldn't we question our humanity? Philosophy does anyways...



*@Holunder * 
_Let's face it, our predictions of the future aren't very reliable - they are usually made redundant by progress. That's why I don't fear the end of civilization as we know it. If it comes, it will most likely come in a form we didn't anticipate. As far as we can see from history, things in general are moving shakily, but steadily forward, despite never being stable. And there is always room to expand, even if it's in the abstract realm of knowledge._
_
Our time may seem special to us, but in the end it is just a piece of history, not the glorious reversal of everything we are into a race of super ethical beings. _


*There is more involved than simply the abolishment of money as the basis of our economic system. Far more important is an accompanying evolution in human ethics. The change to an RBE will help satisfy the ground levels of Maslov's pyramid for all humans and enable us to focus on more important issues than materialism. * 
_Again, that is just a conjecture that has never been proved. And what about the people who refuse to abandon materialism for your glorious enlightenment? (Yes, they will be there.) Your vision of the future doesn't take into account the reality of how people actually are. You cannot suppose that they will all change just because you think it's the right thing to do. _ 


I just hope i am not getting in that "existential loop". 

Science is quiet reliable when it comes to predicting with the help of tools. We get the impression that we are moving forward, but we are stuck with this pseudo-elitism. 

Am i dreaming or do you believe you earned your position aka your social status? Do you mean that you are proud to be in the high, the middle or the lower class? How far did you venture to believe that this is right and everything is moving in the right direction or as it is supposed to be? Sincerely, i do not believe in justice with such a system.



It's not abstract. There is a reality and a movement, there are people that advocate for the Zeitgeist Movement. There is interest growing. Youtube is spreading the word. In Russia, this model was seen on an important news channel. Initiative has been taken. How did Gandhi succeed during his time anyways? 



I have to agree with you. Our time does seem special to us, but in the end it is a piece of history. It's like thinking that aliens are interested in us and making them humanoid.



No one is really right, you know it yourself. What is true has been intelligent in it's context. Now tell me how materialism is progressive...


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

^ DAYUM! Epic post is epic. :mellow:


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

Tiramesu said:


> *http://personalitycafe.com/members/holunder.html**...*What is true has been intelligent in it's context. Now tell me how materialism is progressive...


Clearly, I'm not expert enough in the resource-based theory of economics. What I would like to know is, are there any problems that we can use this theory to solve right now?


----------



## Tiramesu (Mar 20, 2011)

Psychosmurf said:


> Clearly, I'm not expert enough in the resource-based theory of economics. What I would like to know is, are there any problems that we can use this theory to solve right now?


Logically if there were any easy problems to solve, they would be solved within our current system. 
People who are starving to death could be given the excess in agricultural production. Ethanol for instance is food wasted for a poor quality "oil-like" fuel. We could stop that... but the real problem is that none of this would be relevant, perhaps logical under the current economical system. This is just an example of the many cases that pop up in my mind. Medical help would be another. Basically some VERY logical things are just pointless because they do not promote our system and do not guarantee an economical growth. This theory promotes the scientific method. Education would be shared, meaning that knowledge would be made available to everyone. Of course, while it would be a cross-breed with our current system, there would be ethical restrictions like there was for the "H" bomb. Furthermore, with time, automation would be present in every sector. Everything produced would be made very durable and upgradable. The many problems could be solved, still we would need more visibility before those solutions become viable. 

EDIT: It is important to understand that the resource-based system does not offer solutions to problems in the current system. Meaning that the resource-based economy theory is not made to repeat the same mistakes over and over. It does not want to lay a "band-aid" on the current system to support it, it is irrelevant as you understand the state of the world. It is not because it has those solutions and does not want to give them out either. The current economy is simply "overpatched" with those. I believe you understand.


----------



## The Psychonaut (Oct 29, 2009)

Anarchy is the best system. Its the freedom to choose your own system. As long as you can protect it. Encourages Strength and Self-Sufficiency.


----------



## Arbitrator (Mar 31, 2010)

The Psychonaut said:


> Anarchy is the best system. Its the freedom to choose your own system. As long as you can protect it. Encourages Strength and Self-Sufficiency.


And why would that be for the best? A bit disappointing and shallow statement, coming from an NT.


----------



## Tiramesu (Mar 20, 2011)

In a resource-based economy you do not have a ruler. 
In a certain way it will have a direct democracy.
There is no private property, but more of a common ownership.
It does sound like anarchy.

It is not anarchy, because you can point out the anarchy in any system, not like a whole.
A resource-based economy is not a political system because it's about economy and absence of politics, it's a social system.


----------



## Holunder (May 11, 2010)

Tiramesu said:


> Must it be capitalism, communism or any other political structure, all of them are invalid. A political structure is unsustainable due to our finite resources.


Why would you say that? Is there any rational reason that leads from finite resources to invalidity of politics? Historical precedents? Statistics? Anything?




> Even if our world has growing unemployment, growing poverty, growing mental health disorders, drug abuse, rare resource depletion, overall environmental degradation, violence and war propensities, systemic global debt defaults, accelerated inflation, atmospheric destabilization and many other social and ecological problems. What if the very game we play is itself unsustainable and destructive?


In the West, we have a growing mean lifespan, low child mortality rates, always enough food, medicine for most illnesses and generally a high standard of living. There are still problems, but it's hardly like the world is about to end. In fact, our lives are a lot better than a hundred years ago. When in the history of mankind had people leisure to worry about "atmospheric destabilization" (whatever that is supposed to be)?




> It is not about a global planned economy, there are many "similar" yet not so similar movements that support a global planned economy. It is not a political economy, it is not a monetary economy. It is a resource-based economy.


If one entity plans the use of all the resources, that's a planned economy, no matter how you would like to call it. By the way, our economy _is_ resource based. _Supply_ and demand regulate the market.




> In that economy no one is obligated to work.


Because that worked so well whenever something like it was tried?
[/sarcasm]




> Sharing is indeed involved in the process. Ie : For one it is irrelevant to keep his car stored 90% of the time. Why would we not share instead of wasting? Because wasting keeps our system alive.


And who keeps the car clean? Fills in fuel? Repairs damage? You just have to look at public toilets to see how well that approach works.




> Sad news, our economy limits our technological progress and does not clean up for the waste it makes. Therefore there must be a limit, yet it is not determined.


I suppose you have examples of different societies with greater technological progress to back up your claim?




> Again, this is not a political system. There can be objective/so called "democratic" decision making since everyone would be more civilized and less argumentative.


Ah, yes. Why exactly would they be like that?





> Economic growth as in increase of the GDP?
> Did you mean: Environmental genocide, mindless and wasteful consumption, increase in health services, terrorist prevention (try to figure out why), more poverty?
> Well that must be okay because we have more security against terrorist attacks. More health problems to deal with, it's natural anyways. Wasteful consumption means that everything is okay, our economy is growing, like if it is logical to waste finite resources. There was never such thing as an environmental genocide and there will never be until we really see it.


This looks like it was supposed to be an answer to what I wrote, but I have no idea at all what it could have to do with it.
And yes, there is no environmental genocide. (Again, what is that supposed to mean anyway?)




> Well... indeed as you said a resource-based economy is perfect, but wait a minute, it is not really that perfect since you can find it's flaws. I smell a critic #3.
> BEFORE YOU POST ANOTHER "VENUS PROJECT IS FLAWED" THREAD....
> A Different Approach to Critics


Personal attack (conjecturing about my motives/personality instead of debating my arguments). Try harder.




> How do you explain that every other domain, except the social one has ever since progressed?


How has the social domain not progressed? People nowadays have more rights and equality than ever.




> The reality for power is quiet different. You can buy, sell, kill or help anyone with money nowadays. You always could i believe, prove me wrong. Philosophers living 2000 years ago would find it immoral, we do too. Still we continue.


If there was no money, you could help or destroy others by property, or social influence, or counsel. As long as not all people are the same, some will have more power than others. That has nothing to do with money or property. 




> If you do not eat. You will die, in fact. But that does not mean that our system should be considered natural.


No, our way of life is not natural. The natural way is to live in a cave and die at 30 from a cold. Somehow, I prefer the unnatural way.




> If we take a step back and take a look at the whole situation, we are only nurtured to think that we live in a friendly system. Nowadays we can notice that there are many flaws and that the system is trying to keep itself alive by hiding them. The system is trying to preserve itself. It's no better than religion during medieval times if you allow me to compare it.


Every system is flawed. That doesn't prove that an other system than this would be better.




> But really, when you think about it... money is not "natural". It's just a system of resource distribution, like rationing. It's an inefficient system for resource distribution, as it allows for inequality between the haves and the have-nots. Since it's an inefficient system, it should be rebuilt into something better, that allows for a greater amount of human well being.


Money is a very efficient system for resource distribution. What is scarce is bought less, because it costs more. What many people want brings money, so it is produced. Everyone can decide what is most important to them, and what they therefore want to spend their money on. Money allows you to only carry the goods that you need, at the time you actually need them (opposed to a barter system). What's not to like? And, more importantly, what system could be better?




> We are not even near being a civilization. How are we an advanced society when we have not progressed since antiquity? Therefore this system will allow such progress, it will allow one to become master in many domains if not all, therefore civilized.


Not progressed since antiquity? That is wrong on so many accounts, I'm not even sure where to begin. What kind of progress did you expect?




> Well informed and caring people will seek the best for their society and will spread the word.


Oh yes, no one could possibly be well informed and caring if they don't support the zeitgeist movement.




> Jacque Fresco said that many governments except the USA were very interested in his works. Therefore it is an intelligent approach. No need for stupid and pointless wars.


It's new to me that someone being interested in an idea makes it a good idea. Not that I honestly believe Fresco's claims about the interest of the governments, though I am sure he himself believes it.




> *@Holunder *
> *That is the point where we cease to be animals and become humans for the first time. *
> _This is rather disquieting. Are the people that don't follow your movement mere animals? Will you look down on them? Pity them? Or worse?
> Why were the Germans able to kill all those Jews? How could the Hutu just set out and kill their Tutsi neighbors? Because they didn't see them as humans. It's true we are all animals. But we are also all humans. Don't ever question that. _
> ...


Why would any particular opinion qualify me as a victim? And I am quite OK with questioning our humanity. It's questioning the humanity of others that I take exception to.




> Science is quiet reliable when it comes to predicting with the help of tools. We get the impression that we are moving forward, but we are stuck with this pseudo-elitism.


Science is not an almighty tool. There are limits to it, from processing power, which limits the application, to dissenting opinions of different scientists and human bias.


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

sorry to say, but zeitgeist is a classic globalization disinfo cult..


----------

