Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
forget politics and join the movement
Options
Comments
-
Assuming this as true:
How do we instil 'correct' belief systems into people?
Before this, how can we initially determine which belief systems are correct?
How can we tell if someones Belief System is...BS?
And how can we know if our own Belief System contains BS?
As we realise that knowledge and hence our institutions are always evolving, we see that any belief system which claims to "know" anything, without allowing for dispute, is a failed perspective. Religion, with its foundation in faith, is the king of this distortion, as it claims to know something definitively about the most complex and elusive origins of human kind, and this simply is not possible in an emergent universe.
That being said, it is then realised that equally as dangerous as the establishment power structures, are the people who have been conditioned to completely accept the static understandings put forth by these systems... therefore becoming: "Self Appointed Guardians of the Status Quo". This applies to every system, especially political.
If we as individuals pay attention to the natural processes of life, we then see how we can align with nature and thus our path becomes more clear.I tend to agree, to a point. But I remain without any idea how ZM believes this essentially political aim can be achieved, besides the appeal to the the cybernetic deus ex machina. Who gets what, when, and how, remains a politically-loaded question.
The idea of management of Commons is quite topical, with the Bank of Sweden prize being shared by Elinor Ostrom on how successful common-pool resources are managed as institutions, what rules evolve and work.
But a non-tragic Commons does need to be managed, precisely because of being a scarce, rivalrous resource. And this management, invariably, means some form of politics, whether consensual or violently Clausewitzian.
There are two problems ZM needs an answer to.
Both are coordination problems:
One political - how do you organise people and their preferences, if not through a form of politics?
One economic - how are goods to be allocated, or how can 'need' be objectively determined?
Example: many people are worried about population growth on the planet, while very spooky comments by despotic figures like Henry Kissinger claim that some kind of "reduction" is needed. This is, of course, very scary. However, the real question remains: Is population growth really that bad? The answer is that from a scientific perspective the earth can handle many, many times more people if need be, once high technology is harnessed. 70% of our planet is water and cities in the sea are the next step. In turn, education about life operations will inform people as to the ramifications of their reproductive interests and population growth will naturally slow as people begin to realise how they are related to the planet and its carrying capacity.0 -
drunken_munky wrote:As we realise that knowledge and hence our institutions are always evolving, we see that any belief system which claims to "know" anything, without allowing for dispute, is a failed perspective.
Does not the ZM make several such claims? Minimally, going from what you said, 'human nature' as emergent from conditioning (rather than innate predispositions such as selfishness), the certainty and trust placed science and technology as a source of 'truth', and a quasi-spiritual view of personal moral development as 'aligning with nature', and a somewhat-totalitarian response to any questions around what happens to those who don't 'get with it'.
How can we determine when someone has authentically 'aligned with nature', and gained the privileged epistemological position?
Again, how is ZM different? We have a quite static and inflexible perspective, indoctrinated or conditioned by a System, in this case the Zeitgeist Movement.That being said, it is then realised that equally as dangerous as the establishment power structures, are the people who have been conditioned to completely accept the static understandings put forth by these systems... therefore becoming: "Self Appointed Guardians of the Status Quo". This applies to every system, especially political.
Your example does not appear to try to answer either of the core questions, btw. On what basis is allocation to be made? What decisionmaking structures does/should the ZM have?Example0 -
Does not the ZM make several such claims? Minimally, going from what you said, 'human nature' as emergent from conditioning (rather than innate predispositions such as selfishness), the certainty and trust placed science and technology as a source of 'truth', and a quasi-spiritual view of personal moral development as 'aligning with nature', and a somewhat-totalitarian response to any questions around what happens to those who don't 'get with it'.
How can we determine when someone has authentically 'aligned with nature', and gained the privileged epistemological position?
Again, how is ZM different? We have a quite static and inflexible perspective, indoctrinated or conditioned by a System, in this case the Zeitgeist Movement.
What are you talking about? Youv'e completely misunderstood or are trying to misconstrue my earlier posts.Your example does not appear to try to answer either of the core questions, btw. On what basis is allocation to be made? What decisionmaking structures does/should the ZM have?
The ZM is not a political movement. It does not recognise nations, governments, races, religions, creeds or class. ZM's understandings conclude that these are false, outdated distinctions which are far from positive factors for true collective human growth and potential. Their basis is in power division and stratification, not unity and equality, which is ZM's goal. While it is important to understand that everything in life is a natural progression, we must also acknowledge the reality that the human species has the ability to drastically slow and paralyze progress, through social structures which are out of date, dogmatic, and hence out of line with nature itself. The world you see today, full of war, corruption, elitism, pollution, poverty, epidemic disease, human rights abuses, inequality and crime is the result of this paralysis.
This movement is about awareness, in avocation of a fluid evolutionary progress, both personal, social, technological and spiritual. It recognises that the human species is on a natural path for unification, derived from a communal acknowledgment of fundamental and near empirical understandings of how nature works and how we as humans fit into/are a part of this universal unfolding we call life. While this path does exist, it is unfortunately hindered and not recognised by the great majority of humans, who continue to perpetuate outdated and hence degenerative modes of conduct and association. It is this intellectual irrelevancy which the ZM hopes to overcome through education and social action.
The goal is to revise our world society in accord with present day knowledge on all levels, not only creating awareness of social and technological possibilities many have been conditioned to think impossible or against "human nature", but also to provide a means to overcome those elements in society which perpetuate these outdated systems.0 -
drunken_munky52 wrote: »What are you talking about? Youv'e completely misunderstood or are trying to misconstrue my earlier posts.
You have yet to justify the superiority of your understanding - specifically how your movement proposes to overcome the 'conditioned individual' - through what abstract though process/conceputalisation of 'the individual' does the ZM base its alternative proposal on? At every turn you revert to the classical leftist 'false consciousness' justification for implementing your own particular solution. My own discomfort with the ZM is your baseless acceptance of science as providing some sort of objctive 'state of nature' regulatory apparatus. The establishing of a benchmark measure of 'natural alignment' would be a political process in itself.drunken_munky52 wrote: »Religion, with its foundation in faith, is the king of this distortion, as it claims to know something definitively about the most complex and elusive origins of human kind, and this simply is not possible in an emergent universe
How is this any different from your baseless insistence on future technological dependence? It (ZM) has all the hallmarks of doctrine - the original sin of accumulation and environmental risk displacement, the false consciousness of corrupt morals, the immanent judgement and salvation through faith, the deification of the technological saviour...drunken_munky52 wrote: »The ZM is not a political movement.
Again, yes it is.drunken_munky52 wrote: »While it is important to understand that everything in life is a natural progression, we must also acknowledge the reality that the human species has the ability to drastically slow and paralyze progress, through social structures which are out of date, dogmatic, and hence out of line with nature itself.
How do you propose to implement resource-based economies without an administrative apparatus? What about the nature-imposed necessity of production? We are, after all, human.0 -
You have yet to justify the superiority of your understanding - specifically how your movement proposes to overcome the 'conditioned individual' - through what abstract though process/conceputalisation of 'the individual' does the ZM base its alternative proposal on?
The crisis, is not in economic, environmental or social terms... these are merely symptoms... the real crisis is in the state of conciousness. Hence it is up to us as individuals to realise this and adapt, which our current social structures do not allow.
Tradition becomes our security, and when the mind is secure it is in decay.
Jiddu KrishnamurtiAgain, yes it is.
Again, The Zeitgeist Movement, is NOT a Political Movement. ZM does not recognise Nations, Races, Religions, Governments, Legal, Religious or Corporate Institutions, Social or Financial Class or Power of Position or the Monetary System.
po·lit·i·cal
1. Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.
2. Relating to, involving, or characteristic of politics or politicians: "Calling a meeting is a political act in itself"
3. Relating to or involving acts regarded as damaging to a government or state: political crimes.
4. Interested or active in politics: I'm not a very political person.
5. Having or influenced by partisan interests: The court should never become a political institution.
6. Based on or motivated by partisan or self-serving objectives: a purely political decision.
ad·vo·ca·cy
The act of pleading or arguing in favor of something, such as a cause, idea, or policy; active support.How do you propose to implement resource-based economies without an administrative apparatus? What about the nature-imposed necessity of production? We are, after all, human.
Have you come across the Venus Project yet? The ZM brought this plan to my attention.
The Venus Project proposes plans for social change that work toward a peaceful and sustainable global civilization. It outlines an alternative social design where human rights are not just paper proclamations, but a way of life. The Venus Project has a vision of what the future can be if we apply what we already know to achieve a sustainable world civilization. It calls for a scientific redesign of our culture in which war, poverty, hunger, debt, and unnecessary human, suffering are viewed as not only avoidable, but unacceptable. Anything less will result in a disastrous continuation of the problems inherent in today's world.
Communism being similar to a resource-based economy or The Venus Project is an erroneous concept. Communism has money, banks, armies, police, prisons, charismatic personalities, social stratification, and is managed by appointed leaders. The Venus Project's aim is to surpass the need for the use of money. Police, prisons and the military would no longer be necessary when goods, services, healthcare, and education are available to all people. The Venus Project would replace politicians with a cybernated society in which all of the physical entities are managed and operated by computerized systems. The only region that the computers do not operate or manage is the surveillance of human beings. This would be completely unnecessary and considered socially offensive. A society that uses technology without human concern has no basis of survival. Communism has no blueprint or methodology to carry out their ideals and along with capitalism, fascism, and socialism, will ultimately go down in history as failed social experiments.0 -
Advertisement
-
Lets take Wiki's definition instead:Politics is a process by which groups of people make decisions. The term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, but politics has been observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic and religious institutions. It consists of "social relations involving authority or power"
Or take Lasswell's classic definition: 'who gets what, when, and how'.
We can observe 'politics' in chimpanzees, oppressive hierarchical 'pecking orders' in chickens, 'democratic' decision-making in bees voting, and so on. Politics happens, to paraphrase Jesus, 'whenever 3 or more of ye gather together'. Families have politics, flatmates have politics, and dollars to donuts, there's politics within the ZM. I have yet to find a human community of any description without its own politics, whether ecocommune, office, or interweb forum.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and all that.
How, in the ZM, are decisions made?Have you come across the Venus Project yet? The ZM brought this plan to my attention.
The Venus Project has a vision, but seems very light on the actual how. Its also not exactly new; see for instance the ideas of Buckmister Fuller. However, while Fuller advocated ephemeralization, being keenly aware of resource limitations and the competitive struggles emergent from them, the ZM claims that all scarcity is a product of an oppressive economic system, and all that is necessary is to have faith in technology, and stop using money. Blind, unquestioning faith. Hence, ZM appears to an observer to be a profoundly religious movement, based around the worship of technology. Utopian technocratic totalitarianism, to be blunt, in a salvific Gnostic vein.
Science is not meant to be a faith-based enterprise, its meant to be evidence-based. And creating a peaceful and sustainable human civilization is a political-economic objective. ZM seems in peculiar denial about this.
Would the cybernated computers consider it socially offensive? Since they are the locus of all power, I can only presume so. If not, how can humans communicate their abhorrence to their cybernate overlords?The only region that the computers do not operate or manage is the surveillance of human beings. This would be completely unnecessary and considered socially offensive. A society that uses technology without human concern has no basis of survival.
In this dystopia, political power rests with those who control the machines. Since surveillance (aka transparency) is to be outlawed, they shall not be monitored. Essentially, they are to be the new elite; unobserved, and totally powerful.
To repeat, who programs the computers?
I'm still not getting anything close to an answer on this.
To close with Bucky again:The most important fact about Spaceship Earth: an instruction manual didn't come with it.
ZM seems to be assuming the Manual exists, and is uncontroversial.
It's anything but.0 -
Lets take Wiki's definition instead:
I notice that the Wikipedia Page on politics needs to be touched up, not a very clear source of information. Any way, the I see nothing in this definition that relates to how the ZM advocates its message. You failed to come back on me with an obscure definition of advocacy.Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and all that.
How, in the ZM, are decisions made?
Through the humane application of Science and Technology to social design and decision-making, we have the means to transform our tribalistic, scarcity driven, corruption filled environment into something exceedingly more organized, balanced, humane, sustainable and productive. To do so, we have to understand who we are, where we are, what we have, what we want, and how we are going to obtain our goals.Utopian technocratic totalitarianism, to be blunt, in a salvific Gnostic vein.
There are NO utopias or endings. All evidence points to perpetual change on all levels. Realisation by realisation, one step at a time. Not at all blunt. You have a image in your head of all this suddenly been anviled on the world... you are way off the mark.Would the cybernated computers consider it socially offensive? Since they are the locus of all power, I can only presume so. If not, how can humans communicate their abhorrence to their cybernate overlords? .
Here you are just been irrational.In this dystopia, political power rests with those who control the machines. Since surveillance (aka transparency) is to be outlawed, they shall not be monitored. Essentially, they are to be the new elite; unobserved, and totally powerful.
To repeat, who programs the computers?
I'm still not getting anything close to an answer on this.
Obviously, computers are not going to become AI and start some Terminator style war with the human species, that notion died in me many moons ago during my formative years.
Can I ask you, is this what you saying will happen?
As for the programmers, these would be college graduates in computer science, software development etc. Where do you think they would come from?
Technicians would obviously be needed in a supervisory role. They would step up to the mark, not because they are driven by profit, they would do it becuase they want to. Once their belief system is based on the emergent and symbiotic relationships of the universe, power and control become redundant desires.0 -
drunken_munky52 wrote: »The crisis, is not in economic, environmental or social terms... these are merely symptoms... the real crisis is in the state of conciousness. Hence it is up to us as individuals to realise this and adapt, which our current social structures do not allow.
Tradition becomes our security, and when the mind is secure it is in decay.
Jiddu Krishnamurti
Again, how can you justify your appointment as bearer of moral authority and objective interpretator of human nature/state of consciousness? I understand what you are saying - you do not need to repeat this, I am asking upon what basis (relating to Kama's direction to epistemology), do you accord the superiority of your interpretation?drunken_munky52 wrote: »Again, The Zeitgeist Movement, is NOT a Political Movement. ZM does not recognise Nations, Races, Religions, Governments, Legal, Religious or Corporate Institutions, Social or Financial Class or Power of Position or the Monetary System.
po·lit·i·cal
1. Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.
2. Relating to, involving, or characteristic of politics or politicians: "Calling a meeting is a political act in itself"
3. Relating to or involving acts regarded as damaging to a government or state: political crimes.
4. Interested or active in politics: I'm not a very political person.
5. Having or influenced by partisan interests: The court should never become a political institution.
6. Based on or motivated by partisan or self-serving objectives: a purely political decision.
ad·vo·ca·cy
The act of pleading or arguing in favor of something, such as a cause, idea, or policy; active support.
Ok, lets put it differently - can we agree that as an advocacy group, the long term objectives of the ZM are to remove 'old' political power structures and replace them with resource-based allocation according to human need? Is that correct?
In engineering (which, in all honesty, is what you will inevitably be drawn to by locating your revolutionary action at the level of individual and collective consciousness) this new social order, you will be manufacturing a form of consent qualitatively different to the 'old form'.
Fast-forward for a moment and imagine your movement has been successful - (on the basis of a political process of revolutionary consent validation - which, if you are to remove former political structures, it will be) - how can you characterise this process of mass mobilisation as non-political? (definitions five and six above).
Assume your interpretation of fundamanetal human nature is incorrect and 'dissent' emerges - will you maintain order and consensus by force? To argue otherwise is to reassert the movements position as sole interpreters of human nature, which is impossible - the classification of 'dissent' as dissent in itself will involve relativist assumptions.
How (god machines aside) will your new social order deal with education? Ageing populations? Sanitation? Healthcare? How can you suggest that such inevitable concerns will not generate political structures in some form?
Or would it be more accurate to say that you conceptualise 'the political' as merely those existing governance structures whom you identify as corrupt?drunken_munky52 wrote: »Have you come across the Venus Project yet? The ZM brought this plan to my attention.
The Venus Project proposes plans for social change that work toward a peaceful and sustainable global civilization. It outlines an alternative social design where human rights are not just paper proclamations, but a way of life. The Venus Project has a vision of what the future can be if we apply what we already know to achieve a sustainable world civilization. It calls for a scientific redesign of our culture in which war, poverty, hunger, debt, and unnecessary human, suffering are viewed as not only avoidable, but unacceptable. Anything less will result in a disastrous continuation of the problems inherent in today's world.
Is this project based on abstract assumptions of human nature (i.e. that the essential core of humanity, occluded by the corruption of the conventional political structure will become perfectly self-regulatory in the absence of said), or on concrete research?drunken_munky52 wrote: »The Venus Project would replace politicians with a cybernated society in which all of the physical entities are managed and operated by computerized systems. The only region that the computers do not operate or manage is the surveillance of human beings. This would be completely unnecessary and considered socially offensive. A society that uses technology without human concern has no basis of survival.
Ok - you referred to yourself as a scientist a number of posts back - surely you must have some empirical justification for this? Does it not seem like an awful lot of faith to place in an unknown quantity with 'human civilization' at stake? You must have sounder justification for the above beyond abstract notions of human nature and their intrinsic compatibility with artificial regulation?
Following through on your logic - the ZM society will be one without food, correct? Millenia of archaeological, and more recently anthropological evidence shows us that the only inevitability of 'humanity' is the nature-inposed necessity of cultivation. Co-operative cultivation in the absence of capitalised agriculture is a long term necessity of all human societies (displacement of necessity through global trade aside). Either you propose to organise a centralised system of food production or revert to individuated peasant production - either way you will fast encounter the problem of co-operative labour (a political structure no less, irrespective of scale) - interestingly, the formation of an administrative apparatus at community level appears also to be an inevitability of human society.
Will you enforce non-politicisation of production, or allow for the emergence of mirco-political structures? Either way you encounter the problem of collective organisation, and inevitably, the political.0 -
Again, how can you justify your appointment as bearer of moral authority and objective interpretator of human nature/state of consciousness? I understand what you are saying - you do not need to repeat this, I am asking upon what basis (relating to Kama's direction to epistemology), do you accord the superiority of your interpretation?
I am not going to justify myself as bearer of moral authority and objective interpretator of human nature/state of consciousness, nor would I. It is not the right of any person to tell another what to believe, for no human has a full understanding of anything.
I argue that there is a moral Zeitgeist that continually evolves in society. For thousands of years, religion has had a moral monopoly on spirituality. For the scientific method has allowed us insight into natural process, so we can better understand how we 'fit' into this life system as a whole.
This could be a new 'spiritual' awakening.Ok, lets put it differently - can we agree that as an advocacy group, the long term objectives of the ZM are to remove 'old' political power structures and replace them with resource-based allocation according to human need? Is that correct?
Even if the most ethical people in the world were elected to political office, without sufficient resources, we would still have the same problems. What is needed is the intelligent management of Earth's resources for the benefit of all and protection of the environment. So yes, the failed political structures we have now must be wound down slowly overtime.Fast-forward for a moment and imagine your movement has been successful - (on the basis of a political process of revolutionary consent validation - which, if you are to remove former political structures, it will be) - how can you characterise this process of mass mobilisation as non-political? (definitions five and six above).
As to the need for government, only during the transition from a monetary based society to a cybernated high tech resource based economy of common heritage would it be necessary to utilise the services of systems analysts, engineers, computer programmers, etc. They will not dictate the policies or have any more advantage than other people. 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 economically layout the most efficient way to manage transportation, agriculture, city planning, and production. 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.Assume your interpretation of fundamanetal human nature is incorrect and 'dissent' emerges - will you maintain order and consensus by force? To argue otherwise is to reassert the movements position as sole interpreters of human nature, which is impossible - the classification of 'dissent' as dissent in itself will involve relativist assumptions.
Aberrant behavior is produced by aberrant social conditions, malnutrition, minimum wage, lack of motivation, poor role models, and lack of relevant education. People always reflect the influences of environment. Even the wealthiest people today suffer from intellectual poverty.
For the dissent that could emerge, well it would be no where near as likely to be on the scale of the traditional protests and riots we see today. For lets say 99% of crime eliminated due to changes in social foundations, the remaining 1% of cases should be studied carefully to fully understand why it happens and thus make further changes. For the very isolated incidents, would likely be caused by mentally ill people, they would be put into hospital and treated like we treat a mental patient today.How (god machines aside) will your new social order deal with education? Ageing populations? Sanitation? Healthcare? How can you suggest that such inevitable concerns will not generate political structures in some form?
Education should be more than the presentation of many facts to be memorised by students. The first aspects of an innovative education should have an emphasis on communication and the ability to resolve and avoid conflicts. This can be accomplished though an exposure to general semantics.
As for your "inevitable concerns", the effective and economic utilisation of resources, the necessary cybernated and computerised technology would be applied to ensure a higher standard of living for everyone.
In a global resource based economy, decisions would not be based on local politics but on a holistic problem solving approach.Or would it be more accurate to say that you conceptualise 'the political' as merely those existing governance structures whom you identify as corrupt?Is this project based on abstract assumptions of human nature (i.e. that the essential core of humanity, occluded by the corruption of the conventional political structure will become perfectly self-regulatory in the absence of said), or on concrete research?
What do you think?Ok - you referred to yourself as a scientist a number of posts back - surely you must have some empirical justification for this? Does it not seem like an awful lot of faith to place in an unknown quantity with 'human civilization' at stake? You must have sounder justification for the above beyond abstract notions of human nature and their intrinsic compatibility with artificial regulation?
This system is not a perfect conception... its just alot better than what we have now. If we continue down the path of boom, bust, boom, bust we will not only be paralyzed spiritually until the system fails, but when the system does eventually fail, we will be totally unprepared for the consequences; a near extinction of the human species. But humanity will rebound from this, as it has always done. The nomads that roam the raped shell of the Earth will slowly rebuild civilisation as the planet heals itself. But why do this to humanity, when it is totally avoidable? A revolution in the human awakening needs to happen now, if we are to stop this trainwreck from occuring... the railway track ahead is broken and the driver can see it... he has to call the signal man quick to change the track, otherwise... the train is doomed.0 -
*Brain explodes*0
-
Advertisement
-
Science does not tell us how to interpret results. From that perspective, any "spiritual" awakening is based on a (non-scientific) use of scientific knowledge...at which point you're back the same old problem.drunken_munky52 wrote: »For the scientific method has allowed us insight into natural process, so we can better understand how we 'fit' into this life system as a whole.
This could be a new 'spiritual' awakening.
But then how do we build a computer system to solve the problem? If the most ethical people in the world can't correctly define how it shoudl be done, then no-one can define how the computer system should be designed.Even if the most ethical people in the world were elected to political office, without sufficient resources, we would still have the same problems.
Computers are very good at doing exactly what you tell them to.
In terms of doing anything more than that...we're only just-about at the point where a computer can play chess better then a human...and that's just chess. There's no moral decisions...no question of who to let die and who to let live....no question of which individual freedom outweighs which...
Simply put, a computer capable of making such decisions lies in the realm of science fiction.
To be honest, it seems to be a lot better purely based on the premise that solutions to age-old problems will be found....not that those solutions are already identified.This system is not a perfect conception... its just alot better than what we have now.
In effect, its a utopian ideal without a clear roadmap, considered independantly of those who will (inevitably) seek to play the system to their own advantage and the effects of the (inevitable) feedback look that this creates.0 -
drunken_munky52 wrote: »I am not going to justify myself as bearer of moral authority and objective interpretator of human nature/state of consciousness, nor would I. It is not the right of any person to tell another what to believe, for no human has a full understanding of anything.
I argue that there is a moral Zeitgeist that continually evolves in society. For thousands of years, religion has had a moral monopoly on spirituality. For the scientific method has allowed us insight into natural process, so we can better understand how we 'fit' into this life system as a whole.
This could be a new 'spiritual' awakening.
By your interpretation of appropriate 'spirituality'drunken_munky52 wrote: »Even if the most ethical people in the world were elected to political office, without sufficient resources, we would still have the same problems. What is needed is the intelligent management of Earth's resources for the benefit of all and protection of the environment. So yes, the failed political structures we have now must be wound down slowly overtime.
Agreed, but...drunken_munky52 wrote: »As to the need for government, only during the transition from a monetary based society to a cybernated high tech resource based economy of common heritage would it be necessary to utilise the services of systems analysts, engineers, computer programmers, etc. They will not dictate the policies or have any more advantage than other people. 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 economically layout the most efficient way to manage transportation, agriculture, city planning, and production. 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.
To whom will this fall? This is not the end of history - technological development and scientific insight have not distilled the pure essence of truth and order, they are constantly evolving processes inseparable from the human agent and their broader collective (political) networks.drunken_munky52 wrote: »Aberrant behavior is produced by aberrant social conditions, malnutrition, minimum wage, lack of motivation, poor role models, and lack of relevant education. People always reflect the influences of environment. Even the wealthiest people today suffer from intellectual poverty.
Deviance is a subjective term - this is completely circular, with each response you continue to impose judgement in some form. Can you provide something clearer than 'aberrance'? What will this mean for your new social order? Who decides the threshold and limits of 'aberrance'?drunken_munky52 wrote: »For the dissent that could emerge, well it would be no where near as likely to be on the scale of the traditional protests and riots we see today. For lets say 99% of crime eliminated due to changes in social foundations, the remaining 1% of cases should be studied carefully to fully understand why it happens and thus make further changes. For the very isolated incidents, would likely be caused by mentally ill people, they would be put into hospital and treated like we treat a mental patient today.
Aberrance is strictly crime? What about those with alternative political ideals? Would attempted community micro-governance fall within the aberrant remit? How do you propose to complete such study of the remaining 1% without collective action (political)? On what evidence are you basing this?
The last suggestion is more than a little worrying. How should we establish the validity of mental illness diagnoses? A flick through DSM-IV? How were such diagnostic criteria defined? In many cases, such rigorous validity is impossible to establish through conventional biological measurement (hence the need for comprehansive debate and agreement)- will the machines have the answers? Where will they learn what to look for?
What should we do to the kids with ADD?drunken_munky52 wrote: »As for your "inevitable concerns", the effective and economic utilisation of resources, the necessary cybernated and computerised technology would be applied to ensure a higher standard of living for everyone.
In a global resource based economy, decisions would not be based on local politics but on a holistic problem solving approach.
If you only reply to one of these questions, please address this - on what empirical evidence are you drawing - specifically the relation between technogovernance (or whatever you are calling it) and positive outcomedrunken_munky52 wrote: »What do you think?
I'm sorry - I respect that you are arguing your corner, but I think it is complete nonsense0 -
Science does not tell us how to interpret results.
Thats why we have analytical processes in science, so that results can be interpreted and hence a new realisation can just be added to human knowledge ... religion on the other hand blocks all new information in favour of preserving traditional ways of thinking.
I am not saying that spirituality needs to be based solely on science... if you want to believe there is a God, fine... that I can understand... what I do not agree with is that real progress in today's world is been dampened becuase billions of humans have been conditioned into various flawed modes of thinking, which religion is mainly responsible for.From that perspective, any "spiritual" awakening is based on a (non-scientific) use of scientific knowledge...at which point you're back the same old problem.
Maybe modern day paganism is the answer, where we worship the Earth and the Sky, think about it... when you see beautiful scenary, you feel a certain energy that is unique to this action... I know I get a sense of awe when I look up at th stars on a clear night... thats the kind of "religion" we should all follow... this connection we feel with nature.
Computers are already replacing workers year on year. For example, the car industry robotic assembly line, the telephone banking system we use, even the postman... etc. Basically in a resource based economy, all mundane jobs would be eliminated along with the monetary system and replaced with automated methods. People would still need to make decisions in a "political" sense, but these decisions would be based on real problem solving focused with the needs of people and the environment in mind.Computers are very good at doing exactly what you tell them to.In effect, its a utopian ideal without a clear roadmap, considered independantly of those who will (inevitably) seek to play the system to their own advantage and the effects of the (inevitable) feedback look that this creates.
Interesting, seen as a handful of individuals already play the current system to their advantage today. I clearly have already stated that there are no utopias in this idea. Shoot back 500 years we will say... I am on the boards with you and I say "I've got this great idea, its called Communism" and go on to explain everything about it and how I would really like it to happen, you would be rejecting based on your points about how individual aspects of the idea would fail to work... only 400 years later it actually happens.To whom will this fall?
An open source community, where realisations that humans make would be made freely availible to others so their minds can too be updated with this new information, thus opening the doors into new realistions and so on.with each response you continue to impose judgement in some form. Can you provide something clearer than 'aberrance'? What will this mean for your new social order? Who decides the threshold and limits of 'aberrance'?
With each response I give, you continue to ignore every good point I make and squeeze on one word in the paragraph. This is the last time I am going to let you interrogate me. If you have useful counter points, please add them instead of asking your dead end questions.
What would you propose? Keep locking up the drug addict's and joyriders for their crimes born out of social deprevation? There would be far less aberrance in an abundant safe world, therefore there would be plenty of empty prisons one could turn into proper centres of education and rehabilitation.Where will they learn what to look for?
DITOI'm sorry - I respect that you are arguing your corner, but I think it is complete nonsense
By "nonsense" do you mean those of GE who are some of the biggest polluters of the environment and knowingly exposed their workers to carcinogens that caused their deaths, or those that manipulate money for profit without contributing to the well being of people's lives, or those who lend money for an automobile for example and if the person cannot pay off the last payment they do not take a tire and the steering wheel equivalent to the payment, they take the whole car? Or perhaps you may mean judges who put people in jail for life for killing over resources, yet the leaders of nations bomb and kill entire cities and countries for resources and to secure markets and then put statues in parks to honor the ones who carry out this procedure?
There would have to be an awful lot of killing going on if a saner society wanted to rid itself of "unstable" or "aberrant" behavior. No, ZM does not advocate killing anyone. They think that this system is like a cancer on a cat that is eating its host and it will do away with itself in time. The mere march of events of technology will eventually do away with jobs that enable people to buy the goods turned out, and new social designs will have to emerge. They feel that at that time a military dictatorship will most likely occur. The Venus Project would like to introduce the concepts of a resource based economy to the public so they will understand that there are other possible alternatives.0 -
drunken_munky52 wrote: »An open source community, where realisations that humans make would be made freely availible to others so their minds can too be updated with this new information, thus opening the doors into new realistions and so on.drunken_munky52 wrote: »With each response I give, you continue to ignore every good point I make and squeeze on one word in the paragraph. This is the last time I am going to let you interrogate me. If you have useful counter points, please add them instead of asking your dead end questions.
I have nothing to counter argue - your justifications for order are unsubstantiated. My responses ask for concrete examples - how would such open source communities operate - do you have anything beyond vague ideal types? A simple no would suffice, as your replies leave little to argue against (as per first reply). I directed you to some current strands in ecological economics that have dealt with the issues you are addressing, and you ignored. I'm sorry, but it is impossible to engage with a theory that remains in abstraction - empirical justification must be introduced at some point (specifically the technology side, which seems to move between open source/independent calculated decision making).
I'm not pressing the point to open a window to show off - I am genuinely concerned with long term environmental outcomes and equitable governance models.drunken_munky52 wrote: »What would you propose? Keep locking up the drug addict's and joyriders for their crimes born out of social deprevation? There would be far less aberrance in an abundant safe world, therefore there would be plenty of empty prisons one could turn into proper centres of education and rehabilitation.
The problem is not with the outcome - I am in full agreement that the outcome you suggest would no doubt be better. The need for change and reform is not in question - the assumption of workable technological governance and decision making is, and it is to this point I keep returning.drunken_munky52 wrote: »By "nonsense" do you mean those of GE who are some of the biggest polluters of the environment and knowingly exposed their workers to carcinogens that caused their deaths, or those that manipulate money for profit without contributing to the well being of people's lives, or those who lend money for an automobile for example and if the person cannot pay off the last payment they do not take a tire and the steering wheel equivalent to the payment, they take the whole car? Or perhaps you may mean judges who put people in jail for life for killing over resources, yet the leaders of nations bomb and kill entire cities and countries for resources and to secure markets and then put statues in parks to honor the ones who carry out this procedure?
Again, not the point - and that is quite a connection to make from my comment on the venus projectdrunken_munky52 wrote: »There would have to be an awful lot of killing going on if a saner society wanted to rid itself of "unstable" or "aberrant" behavior. No, ZM does not advocate killing anyone. They think that this system is like a cancer on a cat that is eating its host and it will do away with itself in time. The mere march of events of technology will eventually do away with jobs that enable people to buy the goods turned out, and new social designs will have to emerge. They feel that at that time a military dictatorship will most likely occur. The Venus Project would like to introduce the concepts of a resource based economy to the public so they will understand that there are other possible alternatives.
I'll opt out on this one - I have nothing more to contribute unless you want to debate AI decision making and its justification0 -
We're not discussing religion vs. science, though. You're proposing a new way of life, based (at least partly) on some notion that we can apply science to problems such as resource-management.drunken_munky52 wrote: »Thats why we have analytical processes in science, so that results can be interpreted and hence a new realisation can just be added to human knowledge ... religion on the other hand blocks all new information in favour of preserving traditional ways of thinking.
The point I'm making is that science only tells us how to manage resources within the framework of a value-system that has to be seperately defined. The problem is defining that value-system...not the implementation of it.
I thought we were discussing an alternative to political systems? Your diatribe against mainstream religion (and support of alternative worship) has nothing to do with the topic at hand.Maybe modern day paganism is the answer, where we worship the Earth and the Sky, think about it...
I've never suggested otherwise. The point that you're missing is that the jobs which are being replaced are jobs where we can define a clear and unambiguous process, which can then be automated. Resource-management isn't an unambiguous process. The question of what constitutes fairness in the first place isn't an unambiguous question. We could, arguably, define a computer system which managed resources...but only in accordance to a value-system we had already defined. The problem with today's world is that people don't agree on a common value system. If we could agree on such then our problem would be solved without the need for automated control. Automated control without such a common system is, conversely, meaningless and therefore unobtainable.Computers are already replacing workers year on year.
quote]People would still need to make decisions in a "political" sense, [/quote]
Exactly.
In the political sense...a human would still need to make the decisions that leaders make today. So what we'd have is a new form of politics, with new leaders, making new decisions.
Given that the root of your argument lies in the decisions made by those in such positions today...it seems that your new system is just a variation of the old. The emperor has no new clothes.
Thats my point. The flaws in the current system are made apparent by those who play the game to their own advantage. If everyone played fair, and genuinely held the welfare of others as dearly as their own wellbeing, then we wouldn't need a new system. You're proposing a new system, because of these individuals...but the system you're proposing is based on the ideal supposition that such individuals won't be able to effect things....but doesn't explain how that's the case.Interesting, seen as a handful of individuals already play the current system to their advantage today.
You've also presented a system based on ideals, with no acknowledgement of the stresses that the lack of ideal will cause, nor explanation as to how the system will cope with those stresses.I clearly have already stated that there are no utopias in this idea.
In other words, you claim that the system doesn't assume utopianism, but present a system purely in utopian terms.
I'd ask the same questions I'm asking here....to explain how the system would function in the face of those who would exploit it to their own advantage. Looking back on communism rather than forward, its clear to see that this has been a crucial flaw in every major implementation of a system even resembling communism...it has not been fair and eqitable, and the common man has ended up worse off. Why? Primarily because the ideal doesn't square up against the reality, based on stresses and imperfections (aka human nature) which were simply not sufficiently consideredShoot back 500 years we will say... I am on the boards with you and I say "I've got this great idea, its called Communism" and go on to explain everything about it and how I would really like it to happen, you would be rejecting based on your points about how individual aspects of the idea would fail to work... only 400 years later it actually happens.
To go back to Churchill, democracy is the worst system of government...except for all others that have been tried from time to time.
An open source community, where realisations that humans make would be made freely availible to others so their minds can too be updated with this new information, thus opening the doors into new realistions and so on.
With each response I give, you continue to ignore every good point I make and squeeze on one word in the paragraph. This is the last time I am going to let you interrogate me. If you have useful counter points, please add them instead of asking your dead end questions.
What would you propose? Keep locking up the drug addict's and joyriders for their crimes born out of social deprevation? There would be far less aberrance in an abundant safe world, therefore there would be plenty of empty prisons one could turn into proper centres of education and rehabilitation.
DITO
By "nonsense" do you mean those of GE who are some of the biggest polluters of the environment and knowingly exposed their workers to carcinogens that caused their deaths, or those that manipulate money for profit without contributing to the well being of people's lives, or those who lend money for an automobile for example and if the person cannot pay off the last payment they do not take a tire and the steering wheel equivalent to the payment, they take the whole car? Or perhaps you may mean judges who put people in jail for life for killing over resources, yet the leaders of nations bomb and kill entire cities and countries for resources and to secure markets and then put statues in parks to honor the ones who carry out this procedure?
There would have to be an awful lot of killing going on if a saner society wanted to rid itself of "unstable" or "aberrant" behavior. No, ZM does not advocate killing anyone. They think that this system is like a cancer on a cat that is eating its host and it will do away with itself in time. The mere march of events of technology will eventually do away with jobs that enable people to buy the goods turned out, and new social designs will have to emerge. They feel that at that time a military dictatorship will most likely occur. The Venus Project would like to introduce the concepts of a resource based economy to the public so they will understand that there are other possible alternatives.[/quote]0 -
To Predict It Is Necessary to Know Your History Dani Rodrik
Government and industry will continue to assign more and more responsibility for decision making to intelligent machines. Today's machines handle trillions of bits of information per second, far more than is manageable by any number of industrial or political decision makers. They can also assemble and assign constantly updated information.
The other side of this trend is that so many people will be replaced, thus we will no longer have the purchasing power needed to sustain a monetary based economy that burdens the entire population and government with insurmountable debt.
As the old monetary system begins to displace more and more people by its reliance on automation, these people will cease to respect the authority of industry. The time honored pattern of living in all industrial countries, the balancing of work and family interest, would become impossible to maintain for the majority of people displaced by automation.
As AI develops, machines will be assigned the tasks of complex decision making in industrial, military and governmental affairs. This would not imply a take over by machines. Instead, it would be a gradual transfer of decision making processes to machine intelligence as the next phase of social evolution.
Many people believe that government leaders bring about change with a deep concern for the well being of their citizenry. Nothing could be further from the truth, nor did past shifts in society come about as the results of changes in the schools or the home. All established government systems tend to preserve and uphold their own interests and power base.
The real forces responsible for change have more to do with unforeseen, external events or biosocial pressures that physically alter our environment and established social arrangements: for example, the infusion of machines and processes that replace people and remove their means of making a living, adverse natural conditions of drought, flood, storm, and earthquake, manmade disasters of economic oscillations, or some outside threat of hostile nations.0 -
Liberty is a right ...
Love is the law. Do what thou wilt - Problem Solved.0 -
-
What if my wilt means depriving someone else of their 'liberty'? And what is liberty anyway?
I get the same question the whole time. Then you are breaking the first rule - Love is the law. Taking someones liberty is not "loving". We all know in our hearts what is the moral thing to do in any situation, we know what is right and what is wrong. As long as you dont steal, kill etc, your not really breaking any moral rules..
My point is that we were born onto this earth, as equal as anyone else, and have the same rights as anyone else. To trade, to have a home, to cultivate etc..
What is liberty?? - Check this out. The philosophy of liberty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM
Hope this puts you on the right path and I'd be happy to answer any other questions you have on this
0 -
I get the same question the whole time. Then you are breaking the first rule
On what grounds do you hold it to be the first rule?- Love is the law.
What is love exactly, as you understand it?
In what way is it a law?
- A law of nature, like all matter exerts a force on other matter, like gravity (im not a physicist, hopefully thats something along the lines of what the law of gravity is like), in which case it would be impossible to violate such a law and therefore no impingment of liberty would be possible,
- or a law of human nature, in which case it would be equally inviolable,
- or a law to which all human beings should ideally accord (like the laws in our legal system), in which case Im left with the question: where did this law come from?We all know in our hearts what is the moral thing to do in any situation
Then why is there a philosophy of ethics which has stretched back a lot further than 2000 years?we know what is right and what is wrong.
Not 10 minutes ago I was arguing with someone who was saying there is no such thing as morality/right and wrong...As long as you dont steal, kill etc, your not really breaking any moral rules..
Would you say that there is a difference between my killing someone directly, eg giving them poisoned food, and indirectly, eg witholding food from them till they starve? If not, then the very fact of your spending time reading/replying to this post when you could be out earning money to give to a starving person is an indirect form of murder, and some would say morally wrong.My point is that we were born onto this earth, as equal as anyone else,
In what sense are we equal? We are not equal in stature, skin pigmentation, name, family history, the aspects of culture we share, the beliefs we hold etc etc.and have the same rights as anyone else.
Where do these rights come from? What is you justification for holding such a belief?To trade, to have a home, to cultivate etc..
Why should these rights be held preferable to any other "right" which I may choose to believe in? Surely something like the right to trade should be subordinate to a right to education or to food, if we are to take the whole "rights" discourse as assumed.I'd be happy to answer any other questions you have on this
Sorry for putting so many down, anybody else who feels that they can answer the questions feel free.0 -
Advertisement
-
drunken_munky52 wrote: »To Predict It Is Necessary to Know Your History Dani Rodrik
Government and industry will continue to assign more and more responsibility for decision making to intelligent machines. Today's machines handle trillions of bits of information per second, far more than is manageable by any number of industrial or political decision makers. They can also assemble and assign constantly updated information.
The other side of this trend is that so many people will be replaced, thus we will no longer have the purchasing power needed to sustain a monetary based economy that burdens the entire population and government with insurmountable debt.
As the old monetary system begins to displace more and more people by its reliance on automation, these people will cease to respect the authority of industry. The time honored pattern of living in all industrial countries, the balancing of work and family interest, would become impossible to maintain for the majority of people displaced by automation.
As AI develops, machines will be assigned the tasks of complex decision making in industrial, military and governmental affairs. This would not imply a take over by machines. Instead, it would be a gradual transfer of decision making processes to machine intelligence as the next phase of social evolution.
Many people believe that government leaders bring about change with a deep concern for the well being of their citizenry. Nothing could be further from the truth, nor did past shifts in society come about as the results of changes in the schools or the home. All established government systems tend to preserve and uphold their own interests and power base.
The real forces responsible for change have more to do with unforeseen, external events or biosocial pressures that physically alter our environment and established social arrangements: for example, the infusion of machines and processes that replace people and remove their means of making a living, adverse natural conditions of drought, flood, storm, and earthquake, manmade disasters of economic oscillations, or some outside threat of hostile nations.
Well if it isnt mister zeitgeist! haha
Jeez, take a chill pill man.....the human experince will be just as confusing even after we are all long gone.
However, i do like to see people debating our collective society as this says 1. People actually recognise that something is wrong with what we have.
2. And they seek to create a new experience.
This gives me hope for the futute.0 -
Jaysus, theres some serious verbal diahorea goin on in this thread
I'e just glossed over it briefly, the first question I'd like to ask is
How is replacing people with Computers liberating the people, its unemploying them, even in a non monetary society people still need to do SOMETHING day to day to stop from going nuts, so what would you have them do?
also who decides what is a mundane job?
one of the tasks here in my ofice is 'pointin pegs' thats where we take a 50 X 50 X 1500 piece of HWD and turn it into a Garden Stake by makin the end pointy.
many people complain that pointing is the most boring and mundane task on the planet and woner why we dont have some form of giant pencil sharpener like other producers, while for some of us pointing is our favourite task, the swift precission of the cuts the rhytmic flow of production, I personaly find it rather theraputic, many find it soul crushing.
I know the rest of the debate has ben to a higher standard but I do feel the nescessity to bandy about a few cliches, but I'll limit meself to one
Ones mans Meat is another Mans poison0 -
Mahatma coat wrote: »Jaysus, theres some serious verbal diahorea goin on in this thread
I'e just glossed over it briefly, the first question I'd like to ask is
How is replacing people with Computers liberating the people, its unemploying them, even in a non monetary society people still need to do SOMETHING day to day to stop from going nuts, so what would you have them do?
I think you are confusing the idea of "employment" with the societal implied idea that this gives a person value. People will be free to do as they choose, but they will not be given robotic tasks and they will not be deprived of the education they desire to do something a computer CANNOT do.
I think your point can be changed to say that people will always want to create and feel valuable. Your understanding this is actually a remarkable point since many people I talk about the movement with people who either share this opinion, or go the COMPLETE other direction and say "People won't bother doing anything unless they get paid for it".Mahatma coat wrote: »also who decides what is a mundane job?
Everyone does, they're perfectly welcome to do any job they like. But if we have a machine that will point pegs quicker we will mass produce them that way.Mahatma coat wrote: »many people complain that pointing is the most boring and mundane task on the planet and woner why we dont have some form of giant pencil sharpener like other producers, while for some of us pointing is our favourite task, the swift precission of the cuts the rhytmic flow of production, I personaly find it rather theraputic, many find it soul crushing.
Well, in a resource based economy you would be welcome to study anything you like, including carpentry, wood work, sculpture or anything that gives you the happiness you get from your current work.
But, you will not be NEEDED to do your job, but you would be able to practice your craft to a point that your work was far more beautiful than the homogenized stuff produced by machines. Then you could begin mapping your designs into the machines to have your art replicated and created all over the world.
This was merely and example of where human creativity goes when machines are seen as the extensions of our capabilities.
You are welcome to do as you choose, your incentive to give would not be frowned upon.Mahatma coat wrote: »I know the rest of the debate has ben to a higher standard but I do feel the nescessity to bandy about a few cliches, but I'll limit meself to one
Ones mans Meat is another Mans poison
I would like you also to understand that business and capitalism will always try to increase profit margins, and part of that is technological unemployment.
So with this being said, don't make the mistake that because The Zeitgeist Movement talk about the plans for technological reliance in the future openly, they are the only ones who plan this.
Technological unemployment is part of the natural progression, the question is will it liberate or will it impoverish.
Anyone with more technical questions is welcome to join us on the new Ireland Zeitgeist movement chapter with those questions.
wwww.thezeitgeistmovement.ie
-James (Anotheryou)0 -
I answered all the above questions.
They were removed.
Guess theyre not ready for truth.0 -
-
Zeitgeist the movie! Ok I liked it, it ripped apart religion, the banking system and govenmental over throws by the US. It really had me nodding along then came the venus project. Which actually I thought was a great idea.All this wonderful technology providing unlimited abundance and allocating everything that a human can want resourse wise.I even went to one of their meetings. But wait a miniute, abundance??allocation? ...this my friends is communisim in a new special guise. A genius peice of marketing like the hypnotists compliance trick where he keeps you knodding to little truths and then at end you knod to a massive lie.
Again this piece of ideology has gripped the attention of the young a good hearted truth seekers who want to see a better world. It has a following all over the western world with over a million people involved. This effectivly neutralizes a large portion of the truth movement. And cons them into communisim.0 -
simplistic wrote: »But wait a miniute, abundance??allocation? ...this my friends is communisim
Communism used money and labor, had social stratification, and elected officials to maintain the communists' traditions. Most importantly, Communism did not eliminate SCARCITY nor did they have a blueprint or the methods for the production of abundance. Machine production rather than labor will dominate the future. Perhaps through no fault of their own, they also had to maintain huge military expenditures to protect themselves from invasion of fascistic and capitalistic institutions.
Communism being similar to a resource-based economy or The Venus Project is an erroneous concept. Communism has money, banks, armies, police, prisons, charismatic personalities, social stratification, and is managed by appointed leaders.0 -
I dont think True Communisim was ever tried anywhere on more than a very small local scale. this is not it.
I liked the first Zeitgeist movie, except it went off about 9/11 and thats what most people focused on at the detriment of the rest of the movies far more interestin points
thond one has some good points too, but then its let down by the whole Venus Project thing, it seems an unrealistic and poorly thought out pipe dream, which seriously detracts from the rest of the overall message.0 -
I love the degree of emotional and linguistic programming that's gone on with the word "Communism".
THIS, my friends is communism (*As if argument ends there.*)
Well, just to get you straight, we are not "The Red Enemy" in disguise, we purpose social reform along with reform or elimination that led to society becoming the way it is.
BUT, That is not to say using the word communism is somehow a means of dispelling this idea even if it was an apt observation to declare them similar.
Ideologically-charged terms like that are the perfect way to save yourself a hard time thinking.
Even if it WAS communism, which many people inexplicably abhor, why is that a bad thing? Do you know? Its because (Speaking strictly in the mechanisms of the system, not of the attendant human greed and gravitation towards error) it existed within a system that could not pragmatically provide nearly enough of anything and it relied entirely on humans working harder than ever before to pick up that slack.
Also, there's the obvious fact that society is so stratified monetarily these days that allocating the appropriate resources and infrastructure is a truly monstrous job.
We have never really been technologically able to do the leg-work to provide food and water to everywhere in the world.
These days from what I have seen MORE than enough resources, it is just a huge task to move these to places they're needed.
Its not communism, its a whole new menace on the capitalist system, I look forward to seeing what mud slinging they engage in to devalue it.
In the mean time I suggest you guys don't do their job for them with the sloganeering stuff though.0 -
Advertisement
-
AnotherYou wrote: »I love the degree of emotional and linguistic programming that's gone on with the word "Communism".
THIS, my friends is communism (*As if argument ends there.*)
Well, just to get you straight, we are not "The Red Enemy" in disguise, we purpose social reform along with reform or elimination that led to society becoming the way it is.
BUT, That is not to say using the word communism is somehow a means of dispelling this idea even if it was an apt observation to declare them similar.
Ideologically-charged terms like that are the perfect way to save yourself a hard time thinking.
Even if it WAS communism, which many people inexplicably abhor, why is that a bad thing? Do you know? Its because (Speaking strictly in the mechanisms of the system, not of the attendant human greed and gravitation towards error) it existed within a system that could not pragmatically provide nearly enough of anything and it relied entirely on humans working harder than ever before to pick up that slack.
Also, there's the obvious fact that society is so stratified monetarily these days that allocating the appropriate resources and infrastructure is a truly monstrous job.
We have never really been technologically able to do the leg-work to provide food and water to everywhere in the world.
These days from what I have seen MORE than enough resources, it is just a huge task to move these to places they're needed.
Its not communism, its a whole new menace on the capitalist system, I look forward to seeing what mud slinging they engage in to devalue it.
In the mean time I suggest you guys don't do their job for them with the sloganeering stuff though.
I apologise I shouldnt of slapped a term on the venus project like that.
Maybe you could expalin it too me in more detail.
Il just ask for a small scale example say their is a thousand people living in a venus project village or whatever.
I am one of the villagers.
I want to work , how is it decided what job I can do?
I want food, how do I get food?
Since there is no money, if I live here how can I engage with the outside world? Say if I wanted to travel ? or even trade with a non- venus project city?
What happens if I kill someone in a fit of passion? who will arrest me?Who decides on who the police are?
I want a bigger car than my neighbour who decides that?
I have become addicted to heroin by my own choice and I refuse to work,what happens?
What happens if we are attacked?
I have plenty more but if your being honest the venus project is going to have to start of small like this and I like to know how they will deal with these scenarios?0
Advertisement