Was Unabomber right? Will civilization collapse?

Post Reply New Topic

Sorry, but I have a life. Unlike some it seems.

By the way, I take it that you are cowering away of my challenge to prove that TZM is the ONLY thing I have EVER talked about.



I hang around MORE than long enough to discuss and further explain the things I talk about. please refer back to the previous threads who's pages goes into the double figures because of me. And sky is falling? Ummmm, You mayyyyyyyy notice that I didn't start this particular thread. Kay? Kay. I'm not a doomsday theorist. I just recognise what the result is of an inherantly inflationary anti-economic system that exists on a finite planet.

My point is NOT that the sky is falling. I'm saying is that it WILL fall and crush us all if we don't get the hell out of the way first.



Wrong. I said we can't have perpetual growth on a finite planet.



Then why didn't you state so from the beginning? Coz I'd be forgiven to see what you're saying right now as back-peddling.



Second worst? sorry, I can't see any other system that has already existed doing any worse OR better than what we have right now. Capitalism, communism, fascism, and every other system are all essentiually interchangeable in their flaws. Because they ALL use the monetary system. we have the technological capability and the knowledge to build an RBE TODAY. We could have actually done it decades ago. This is a realisation you come to when you do objective research on the TRUE state of technology.

As a side-note, when I was interviewing Ben Mcleish for my podcast show, we talked about religion and how it has hampered intellectual development of man. He told me of a graph that was done that mapped human intellectual development that flatlined for 400 years during the dark ages. He then went on to imagine what wonderful state of development we will be at in 400 years time, and picture that as NOW. That is what we would have if the dark ages had never happened.



If the collapse of the entire global monetary system plays out like an Enid Blyton novel, then of course we don't need "people standing on soap boxes" as you call it, but that just demonstrates that you have no idea what an economic collapse will entail. At least not one of the magnitude that we are on the precipice of. You see, unlike the 1929 crash we don't have all that room for "economic growth" or anywhere near the amount of resources like oil left. Right now, we consume a billion barrels of oil ever 11 and a half days. If every person on the planet consumed at the rate that the US does, then we would need TWO EARTHS to sustain the population. By 2030 we would need FIVE.

Does the phrase:

"Consume, consume, consume until we have no planet left to consume" concern you at all?

Tell you what, here's the trailer to the documentary "Collapse" based on the book "Presidential Energy Policy" By Michael C. Ruppert. A man who's work you really should look into.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAyHIOg5aHk[/youtube]

I'm replying after the first page so people will just ignore me and keep talking about whatever angle they're already talking about, but, I basically think that some societies will collapse but many will not, and that in the long run, the societies with more technology will be more successful.

Nice try.


I'm just waiting to see them come through in equal or greater bulk.


And I'm telling you that human economic decision making is liquid - so is nearly everyone else on the thread aside from the OP. When an issue becomes salient we change the course on our own.


If we were utterly imperceptive robots, right.


I meant economic but - make of what whatever you want.


Lol, feel like proving that I've never espoused that idea before? I doubt it.


The alternative to no money is what? Bum rape each other until we know who's best at it - winner takes all?


It sounds like your guy just has a terrible imagination. Try thinking of what people were back in 500 or 600 AD or so, how and where they lived, and then telling them that there's no god, no life hereafter, and no free will. Do you think - if they all for some strange reason (perhaps you had them thinking you were a God from the future) believed you - what reason to you have to believe that you would have spurred the Enlightenment 1300 years early or that they would have reacted in any way similar to what people of this and the last century have? IMO its a horridly naive outlook.


Imagination seems to be an issue here as well. You're really sure that we're inexorably stuck on oil? You also believe that there isn't just a current shift to the developing world, that they're about to experience a huge drop in birth rate as education and standard of living improves? I believe you even posted some videos on the development of alternative energies - did you simply not believe any of that?



No, because more often than ever its intellectual property, recycled resources, and people will do whatever the heck they find to be in their best interest. Again, the debate about environment rages on and - the one thing that all sides of the argument agree on, no one wants to, quite literally, trash the earth and hardly anyone doesn't like green products.


My version of collapse - we have governmental red tape wrapped so deep around our oil and natural gas that we can't use them and, if it ends up that we still need oil as much as we do today in 20 years and we're on the same plan then as we are now, and giving other countries our drilling permits, its suicide in steps - proudly brought to us by the oikophobic in high places.

I completely agree. Iceland is not talked about anymore. This article will tell you why. Coz the public have claimed their sovereignty, the elites have fled the country and by common consensus are fashioning their OWN constitution.

http://2013rainbowroundtable.ning.com/p ... but-is-not




That wasn't an attempt. It was a statement. I have done my socialising on here. I don't need to keep shmoozing people. I have a life and things to do than spend all my time on here. Get it? Got it? Good.



Just as I thought, cowering away from the challenge. Do me a favour and don't accuse me of things you can't prove. It makes you look very silly.



Yes, I agree. So therefore human decision making is also subjective, unreliable, vulnerable to bias/vested interest and prejudice. It is largely inaccurate and is surpassed by ARRIVING at decisions using the scientific method.



Nope, last time I checked we were human beings. Just because someone arrives at a conclusion becuase of objective research doesn't make them a robot. It just makes them more productive.



Hehehe, oh dear. Sounds like someone can't admit their failings.



Prove me wrong then.



*facepalm* Oh dear. You REALLY haven't paid attention to ANYTHING I've said, have you? Tell you what, since you have shown that you need me to hold your hand while walking you through this, spoonfeeding you all the way then sit yourself down and watch this video:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mkRFCtl2MI[/youtube]



You obviously haven't heard of the word "Hypothetical".

Try thinking of what people were back in 500 or 600 AD or so, how and where they lived, and then telling them that there's no god, no life hereafter, and no free will. Do you think - if they all for some strange reason (perhaps you had them thinking you were a God from the future) believed you - what reason to you have to believe that you would have spurred the Enlightenment 1300 years early or that they would have reacted in any way similar to what people of this and the last century have? IMO its a horridly naive outlook. [/quote]

Actually, humanity would have probably dealt with the issue better since the strength of indoctrination wouldn't have been as deeply embedded in their very culture and social mindset as it is so deeply engrained now. The majority of our legal and law system is based upon religious morals. That's how far the tick of religion has dug itself it our psyche.

Coz of course you try to paint a picture of us going round to simple people and giving them Richard Dawkins style rants. *stifles a laugh*



Imagination isn't the top faculty needed for someone who is just analysing trends and assessing using the scientific method where it is going.

Imagination is more needed for someone like yourself who needs to formulate grand pictures of fantasy to shield yourself from the economic reality we face.



If we're not, how come we STILL use it for virtually EVERYTHING?



Ahhh, no, this isn't my belief because I have said nothing on this matter. YOU have asserted this, so could you provide your source for this supposition please?



When I do objective research and make FINDINGS, then no I don't believe it, I KNOW it.



Hense why the current paradigm won't last.



I agree with you. The earth is our home.



Cool. Mike is on my facebook friends list. Shall I send him your version and get back to you to tell you what he thinks of it?

It was an attempt to imply that people who do socialize here do so because they don't have lives. It doesn't take 'no life' to do more than just PSA the forum.


No, the kind of collapse of the nature you're talking about would take the whole world being asleep at the wheel in ways that we just aren't.


Bit of a far out way to read that one but sure. We're not imperceptiver robots therefore we wouldn't all lemming ourselves off of a cliff. You can look at 15 problems coming down the road, all but one or two fall off in a ditch or get corrected by either good planning and/or public awareness.


Start excavating all your posts on philosophy, theology, the nature of the universe, and other-than-economy and government conspiracy posts. That's the trade.


If I understand the overall idea of RBE right money is the cause of all evil, capitalism needs innefficiency, and if we all just did things for each other in an organized way from the kindness of our hearts it would all work. My problem with it - millions of years of evolution, residual impulses, and inherent problems with the human condition aren't accounted for.



Yes, and half-baked theories are a sign of poor imagination.


Have you considered the possibility that atheism et large needs a certain amount of technological civilization and somewhat decent living conditions to accomodate it? I'm not talking about a few isolated heros like Democritus or Spinoza but whole societies.


I'd rather Hitchens style rants or, if we wanted to get more articulate perhaps Habermaas type rants. As an atheist - yes - its sad to see other atheists act naive or like religious fundies. I'm not getting at that with this guy. I think he's cherrypicking one thing about the dark ages that fits what he likes of the picture and using it to prop what he believes. You might want to ask him one of these days what kind of currency was used in the dark ages since you're hot on that topic.


On the contrary - if you can't model an experiment without thinking of all the variables you get crap at the other end, no matter how methodical you were about it. 'Haha! You're backtracking! You said imagination!' - this is exactly what I meant. We didn't live in the dark ages, we have perhaps some sense of forensic history but it takes 'imagination' to be able to sort out human realities of places we haven't been, times we haven't been in, etc.. Its the more grown-up use of the phrase.


Ironic.


Have you followed where solar is going in terms of outstripping production costs for more standard oil-based suppliers? Have you noticed the movement of electric cars to the market? Do you think it's going to happen either overnight or not at all or is it more likely that perhaps a half-decade or decade of beta testing will lead public acceptance as prices additionally fall down?



I never said that you said it, just that human population is highly relevant to your concern about overconsumption of the earth. I'm not sure if you're asking for proof that you said something or proof that education lowers birth rate but here's at least a few things that came up when I just did a basic yahoo search:

http://www.prb.org/Articles/2007/623WorldPop.aspx
http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english ... beg_03.pdf



If you want to go that route its probably worse - admitting that you don't know your own posts. I'll remind you since you've forgotten. You had a video on steam, solar, etc. making major waves and coming up on other energy sources rapidly.

How on earth is that congruent with us being bound to oil until its all gone?



What on earth does that mean? And let me ask you this - if people consume consume consume movies on netflix, Ipad apps, I consume consume consume softsynths, plugins, and DAWs, while other people consume consume consume all kinds of different applications and video games; isn't that a big chunk out of the whole fear that we'll be devouring all the world has?


Green products also have supreme efficiency - they sell themselves.


I'm really indifferent. Even that scenario I just gave is a bit unlikely for the same reason we aren't building new refineries - the future of oil is still too unstable for a ten year building project of that magnitude to be worth the risk.

Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 24 Aug 2011, 8:02 am, edited 4 times in total.

The part in bold--on this I agree. This happens to have ties to the "argument from morality," and it's interesting to me that you mention at the very least that contemporary laws have roots in religion. I've made the argument on issues tangential to this that our legal system is loosely Bible-based, and there was some debate on whether it stems from Hebrew tradition or Greek tradition, which I'd concede Greek in terms of procedure and infrastructure, etc. But the laws themselves either show roots in ancient Hebrew ideology and therefore show Hebrew influence or, at the very least, they show that the laws of the Greeks and Hebrews have some sort of shared memory. I believe it was Paul, if I'm not mistaken, who said that God did not give the law to the Greeks like He did the Israelites under Moses, but rather that the law was written on their hearts. Clearly the proper relationship of man with man was intended for all mankind, as was the plan for reconciliation of God with man. It could be reasonably said that universal morality is scripturally sourced and whether we are aware of this or not is really irrelevant.

The other side of this debate is whether religion really has anything to do with it at all, or if rather law-making and law-enforcement are merely social mechanisms for the survival of the human species. The problem I have with this is that the "feel" of morality and its reflection in politically authoritative law is entirely too nuanced to be a mere natural condition. Whether or not we are truly free, we do seem to have the ability to throw off laws and internal moral rules, ignoring them or making ourselves numb to them in order to do, well, really whatever we want to do in spite of legal or spiritual consequences.

So, are laws really the product of religion? Or are they a response to some naturalistic instinct or sense of a need to survive? Or is it something else? Do we have morals because they "just work"?

Wrong again. You're projecting into what I'm saying with your own assumptions.



I never said we are "asleep at the wheel" as you call it.



Not sure what your point is here. When it comes to automobile accidents, the number of deaths on the road due to human error is purely unacceptable.



Surely that would prove that I'm NOT a one-trick pony if you assert that I have spoken on all these issues, which I have. You're contradicting yourself now.


If I understand the overall idea of RBE right money is the cause of all evil, [/quote]

Not entirely. I do not recognise "evil" in the same way that it is used as a religious connotation.



This is a false assumption of our "nature". Please review how I have EXPLICITLY dispelled the "human nature" and "genetics" argument.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aPcjxAElgM[/youtube]

However having said that, your overall grasp of it is good. In my next Q&A show which will be uploaded on or around september 5th I will be going through a numbered list of exactly what is wrong with our current system in addition to how an RBE functions using very padestrian terminology. Coz one of my questions dictates the boiling of all of it down to the naked basics that a child can understand, then build up their understanding from there.



Citing that opinion doesn't prove anything.



You don't need a technological society, highly developed or otherwise to discount the supposition of religion. We've been doing it ever since religion was formulated. If what you say were the case, then we would NEVER have got out of the dark ages.



Me too.



Currency and religion were mutually exclusive. However now with fractional reserve banking, money IS now god. Think about the inherantly religious belief that the money in our wallets is actually real and it has any worth whatsoever. Its FIAT. Its worthless. And yet, even a hell of a lot of people who refuse to believe in any diety, still pray at the altar of capitalism. The bank machine.



You can use imagination all you like in a formula, but when it comes down to brass tacks, you have to work with what you've got. Not what you would like to have or imagine.



And your point is? Do you have a problem with the idea that imagination isn't the absolute key faculty to soving problems?



Yes it is. Because I deal with facts. Not accusations built upon lack of them.



Yes I have, however that still doesn't account for the MILLIONS of goods and products which are made with oil.



Yes I have. And I have also noticed their downfall and inhibition due to the vested interests of the established industries that are proffiting way too much from the increasing scarcity and expiration of oil. The documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" demonstrates that perfectly.



Of course I don't think it will happen overnight. The established institutions already have far too much of an ingrained vested interest in the markets characterised by scarcity. The interests of the oil industry would rather bury the economy with their addiction to profits than move over to other means which have the potential to create an abundance. That is why Geothermal power, while being recognised as having the ability to generate 2000 times more energy than the planet uses, will not be put into widespread use because the oil industry simply make too much m,oney from ever-decreasing oil.



Second-guessing me won't allow you to see my point. I never said anything about any supposed link between education and birth rate, that is your own projection



In the past, of course I have posted videos on the subject. Such as this one:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqv0Y1t1bNw[/youtube]



Apply basic economics 101 with the oil industry and you'll get your answer.



Is ANY of what you have just listed here actual TANGIBLE resources? Or are all of these things simply collections of electrical data? As such, how can you "consume" something that only exists electronically?

That is why your list here is a strawman. Because I am talking about the consumption of PHYSICAL resources.




Exactly. I wholly advocate the use of such products.



I knew you'd say something like that. I'll run it by him anyway.



Exactly. It is very unlikely.

You're implying peoples ability to react to their surroundings is crap to say that we're headed for a hard collapse.


A big 'collapse' - of that scale - has a lot of moving factors in front of it that could and likely will knock it off the tracks. It won't happen because adaptation will have already solved it.


Unabashed sheistiness.


The funny thing about it, growing up in an NT culture - they just instinctively knew who to hate, what to like and not to like, if they found you to be an undesirable it did not take someone who used to know you running ahead and sharing your whole past - they just knew. Much like everyone knows how to be materialistic in the exact same ways, knows how to look at a person's worth in the exact same ways and for all the smoke people try to below up each other's asses about accepting diversity its not accepted. Even most socalled liberals fall right down when the calling comes to practice what they preach.

The ways in which we're petty, the ways in which we judge each other on genetic worth, for instance in the dating game, show every sign of eugenic behavior - ie. a guy with money who's geeky, is a fag compared to a guy who looks like he's been in and out of jail. A girl who's rock dumb and had no financial assets but looks like Jessica Simpson will lay to waste - in the dating game - any girl who's a self-made entrepreneur making a few 100k per year but happens to be a bit over 200 and seems awkward. I don't see this as signs of capitalism running the show at all, rather it seems like money has much less baring than traditional cave man/cave woman role playing - the man has to be a hunter killer (with the odd exception being that if you are the perfect walking/talking stereotype of something else you may get a niche pass), whereas there are plenty of very attractive women who via intelligence can't get men for the fact that they come off too much like leaders.

You also have the issue of bullying. This happens without scarcity. Why? Sometimes, occasionally, its abuse. Other times - people really have come to expect - from how other people treat them, that they're too badass to have to worry about the rules, that they can take whatever they want away from other people or treat them how ever they want and that these people will give it up softly and sweetly. That's not a capitalism issue - its a narcissism issue. We've gone as well from needing to be 'men' for the sake of protecting women and children from wild animals to now needing to be able to protect them from bullies and sickos.

As well AS shouldn't exist as an issue if you really think about it; lots of us are very bright, lots of us have great earning potential. Where do we fail though? As animals. Our instincts are not just like the next person's instincts - they notice this and that's what gets the ball rolling toward a heck of a difficult life.

I'm not saying that that can't be dealt with at all, ever, I am suggesting that we have a very long way to go in defusing that bomb before we think of a purely egalitarian society, because if we can't diffuse it we'll have people doing even more insane things to prove to the opposite sex that they deserve to pass their genes on and even stranger things to people who they feel that they can walk on if they're given that much time to have on their hands.

My best solution - I love Kali, Kuntao, Silat, etc. Knowing how to be a walking Catherine wheel and possibly how to teach others, who have peaceful intent, how to keep that peaceful intent in confidence and for those who really mean ill make sure the lesson is remembered every time it rains and they're stuck popping pills for the rest of their lives. Its a bit like the 'If everyone had a gun' argument I suppose but, discipline does have an antagonistic relationship with bullying on the bright side.




It was largely changes that occurred in the early middle ages and then renaissance that set the stage for this kind of change and readiness.


Mutually exclusive? You'll have to elaborate, I see no correlation.


It takes imagination to ask the right questions to make sure you have all the input variables correct, otherwise you have some pretty bad science.


Does that even come close to the automotive and especially commercial transport market for it?


Is it dead? I keep seeing more models coming out, could have fooled me. It might not be the pace you'd prefer but 'dead'?


Or because its still not a good investment yet at the consumer level. People are looking to save money, a technology that pays for itself quick enough to raise eyebrows is what gets people interested.


You just quoted me saying that I didn't say you said it, you wanted proof for 'something'.


Right, and it has zero competition - you say that as the same guy who keeps posting videos about alternative energy innovation.


Its replacing more and what more of what used to be a physical goods chase. This coupled with my argument of lower global birthrates means we're - in a combination of ways, turning away from the ledge. Were not headed for an epic collapse.



Wait... so you're agreeing with me here and then telling me we'll be stuck on oil until its all gone...

You're implying peoples ability to react to their surroundings is crap to say that we're headed for a hard collapse. [/quote]

*Shakes head* Every time you're trying to second guess me is another time when you will be wrong.



Then please, enlighten us all. What can save our current monetary economy from complete collapse BESIDES more inflation?



Yes, I agree, the religious connotation of evil IS sheistiness.


The funny thing about it, growing up in an NT culture - they just instinctively knew who to hate, what to like and not to like, if they found you to be an undesirable it did not take someone who used to know you running ahead and sharing your whole past - they just knew. Much like everyone knows how to be materialistic in the exact same ways, knows how to look at a person's worth in the exact same ways and for all the smoke people try to below up each other's asses about accepting diversity its not accepted. Even most socalled liberals fall right down when the calling comes to practice what they preach. [/quote]

That is why a value system shift is despeately needed. And this will never happen in the monetary system. Values are culminated to perpetuate the core motivations and reinforcements of the system. And our current one is rooted is segregation, distrust and abhorancy. This is not a case of human nature or anything hard-wired. We are biopsychosocial organisms. And such organisms DON'T have an overriding "nature". We're creatures of conditioning. As Heath Ledger said as The Joker:

"They're only as good as the world allows them to be."



This has got NOTHING to do with our "nature". Coz you don't see other cultures doing the same shizzle, do you? Of course not. What you are describing are biproducts of CULTURE. Nothing more.



Again, CULTURE, not nature.



What examples of an environment WITHOUT scarcity are you getting this from?



Yet again, you're referring to CULTURE, not nature. Please, learn enough to know the difference.



How does this fit into the nature vs. nurture argument? Or are you going off on a tangent?



And your reasons and evidence for this is?



Somehow I'm getting the overwhelming impression that you think that what you see in our society is raw nature and culture doesn't even exist.



Hello? That what solar power does? You are clearly ignoring facts I am giving and supposing opinions of your own in their place purely coz you don't wanna agree with me or consider what I am saying to you.



Consider your source. Nuff said. lol Having said that, is THAT the only proof you can give me for anything? If so, your argument is extremely weak.



You're saying that oil has zero competion??? What planet do you live on???



That hasn't answered my question. You have side-stepped around it.



Unless we do something to lessen our dependance upon oil such as getting off the grid and not contributing towards the burning of fossil fuels as much as possible, and hense demand a move out of this system, of course I'm agreeing with you that we're stuck with oil until it all runs out. I would have thought that was self evident.... Obviously not.

The Venus Project is big on space colonization which is a code word for nuclear power because that is the only means we have to travel to the stars. I'd like to see how far the Zeitgeist Project will try to distance itself now especially when the former Venus Project-Zeitgeist Project joint venture is so ingrained into peoples minds.

Uhhhh, no. We need to take care of THIS planet first. Besides, TVP is no longer affiliated with TZM. So WHY do you keep going ON, AND ON AND ON about TVP when I'm not even advocating them directly anymore? Please, do some objective research.



Really? How so?



Are Jacque Fresco's circular cities built on EARTH, or in space?



We're called the Zeitgeist MOVEMENT.



We have already distanced ourselves. In fact we distanced ourselves from the very beginning. Hense why it is called the ZEITGEIST movement and not The venus Project Movement. Very simple. People have to extract their heads out of their backsides and move with the times. Do you still call the german government the Nazis, or Third Reich? Just curious.

Let me break the news to you. To get to the nearest star which is 4 light years away you need to build a nuclear powered starship that can haul a$$ and travel at 60 million miles per hour and even then it will take you 40 years to get there.. Once you get there you you can do what ever you want. By that time all those evil nuclear scientists would have died out so you can blow up the ship and declare your new Garden of Eden a nuclear free zone to such an extent that even the concept of nuclear technology will not exist. But you have to get there first.

I hate this line of thinking. You're going to have better luck helping this planet with technology developed to further the Human race into space than simply by sitting here waiting for s**t to happen making podcasts

And let me break some news to YOU:

Neither TVP OR TZM have their asperations on space travel. We are concerned with how we can make THIS planet prosperous for us all. You got that? Or do I have to break it down for you in simpler terms?

LMAO!! !! And you're part of WHICH organisation predicated upon providing technology to create an abundance for people?

So you REALLY think that abandoning this planet is gonna be an option right now, and think that we will do better on another planet and NOT make the mistakes that we made here. Wow, good luck. I'll never stop being strangely amused by people who attempt to downgrade what I'm doing while they're doing sod all to help humanity. Instead they think that attempting to invalidate other people's efforts is gonna bring ANY positive outcome.

Downgrade what you're doing? Abandon the planet? Invalidate "your" efforts? Are you insane? Step back, relax for a minute, get the s**t out of your ears, eyes, or whatever sensory organ you prefer (this is a joke. don't flip out again. )

TZM has noble goals, and ignoring how space technology can help is... ignorant. TZM talks about automation, sustainability- only the uninformed and ignorant are unaware of how it [space tech] can help advance these technologies on Earth. Technology developed in space has huge applications on Earth. People like you talk about 'saving this planet first'- we will never get ANYWHERE with this attitude.

Please refrain from insulting me by putting words in my mouth. Your conduct in this thread is more likely to make people look at you like a lunatic supporting a fringe lunatic group than see the hope that TZM might actually present for the future. Like I said, relax a little bit

Last edited by Vigilans on 25 Aug 2011, 2:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.