The Zeitgeist Movement - Podcast show now online!

Post Reply New Topic

Science and technology already arguably have created an abundance of many things. Abundance doesn't change power dynamics. Instead, people fight over who gets to control the abundance and dole it out in exchange for power. There is no degree of abundance that will stop people from trying to bottleneck and control it. This is what famine relief workers discovered in Africa. They shipped abundancies of food to famine-stricken parts of Africa, thinking that this food abundance would end the famine. But what actually happened is that well-armed warlords immediately seized the food and only doled out small portions to the people in order to control them.

There is no abundance so great that people will relinquish their desire to be the ones controlling it.

Exactly. And that's a problem all on its own. The machine is controlled by the people who program it. This focuses power in the hands of those who program RBE computers. Who controls the technology, controls the abundance.

Is this the only thing you wanna quote? This is only true within the value system of monetary economies. This does not apply to an RBE. When you live in a world where you can get what you need at no expense, no barter, debt or servitude, where does the idea of "controlling" anything come in?



In our current economic model, yes, in an RBE, no. You need to look outside the current paradigm and think about this in terms of what the value system of an RBE promotes.



Absolutely, but this act in of itself doesn't change what made those countries poor in the first place. And it doesn't change the existing power structures.



How about the fact that the "rich elites" are outnumbered 99-1? How about the fact that it is the consented subordination of the masses that gives the governments the ability to govern?

You see again, you're only thinking about this in terms of a monetary system. An RBE is a COMPLETELY different system.



The machines aren't controlled by anything other than the programming which is to provide for everyone on the planet at a high standard of living. What's wrong with that? You need to consider the fact that an RBE comprises a COMPLETELY different value system, where control is a complete and utter illusion. There ARE no means to gain control of anything.

But I can bring this issue up with Doug on the 5th so you can get a further technological oriented answer to these concerns.

Janissy

Adam Anti-Um

I have decided to become far more selective in my quotes. When I argue every bullet point, each exchange between us doubles in size. So to streamline I will only pick one or two of the points.

Anyway..... Where does the idea of controlling come from? From the observation that raw material resources aren't the only thing people want. Lots of people also want power. An abundance of resources doesn't change that desire since it assumes that material things are all anybody wants. But this isn't true. People also want power independent of material resources. Controlling resources has historically been a way to get and keep that power. No system is static because people aren't static. Let's say that against all odds, this RBE really did come into place. Now everybody has infinite material resources through the miracle of RBE. But it's not going to stay that way. There will be people who want more than mere resources. They want power over other people. They can get this power by forcibly or secretly gaining control of the computers that manage the RBE, hacking, in other words.





.

Janissy

Adam Anti-Um

As you say, the machines are controlled by their programming. Computers can be hacked. Or computers can be programmed to not be quite as egalitarian as the public plan states, but rather to subtly shift resources to allow control by the programmers. In this system, the programmers have all the control because they write the programs that control the RBE. Distributing the writing of these programs over a wide base of people is one way of discouraging an RBE-programming elite. But there will still be an inherent power dynamic based on who gets to actually write the code. This system depends entirely on their altruism. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

But suppose there is so much programming transparency distributed over so many programmers that this programming elite doesn't happen? There is still the problem of hackers. Some internet viruses are written to control resources (such as the ones that steal personal and financial information from computers). But some are written for purely for the power thrill that comes from crippling a system, even if the hacker gains no resources. This quirk of human psychology is not going away just because there is lots of stuff lying about. People want more than stuff. Some want the sheer thrill of power. And when there is lots of stuff for everyone, getting power just for the thrill of it becomes a pretty strong incentive. People get bored, after all. Hackers are a real threat to an RBE.

And now on to a constructive idea rather than a criticism of what I see as half-baked ideas:

You and people on the website frequently counter criticisms by saying "this has never been tried before" (such as in the bullet points I didn't quote). You need to actually try it. It's going to be very hard to convince people that this will work globally if you haven't even tried it locally. You say the RBE would be computer controlled. You should get some programmers together and actually start writing some code to experiment with how a computer would distribute resources. Make a computer simulation. If you can't do this in simulation, there is no reason for people to believe you could do it in reality.

Good for you.



In our current system, yes, in an RBE, no.



You're STILL thinking within the confines of the monetary value system. Also you realise that "wants" and "needs" are completely different, right? I've elaborated on that in my most recent podcast, question 3. When we talk about abundance, we're referring to an "access abundance".



In our current system, yes, in an RBE, no. Please, get your head out of the monetary paradigm for just a moment and consider what the optimal value system comprises.



Absolutely. We live in an emergent universe, so everything is always in constant transition.



Ok, first off, it is actually against all odds that this current system will still be standing beyond this century. We will be moving into a more technologically oriented society one way or the other. Either that, or we destroy ourselves coz of the despotic value system that we harbour right now being fuelled by the desparity caused by depleated natural resources, like oil.

Second, no-one has infinite resources, since we live on a FINITE planet. Every human being has an access abundance to provide them with a high standard of living.

Third and RBE is not a miracle. It's not perfect, its just a damn sight much better than what we call an "economy" right now.

And forth of course its not gonna stay the same as I have said we live within emergence. Everything is always gonna change, improve and optimise.



How can someone "hack" an automated system that has multiple levels of redundancy built in that can detect any change in operation and rectify that change if it deviates from the logical processes in real-time? In regards to how the system is organised, in a sense it is like the internet. DECENTRALISED. Can anyone "hack" the internet as a whole? What would be the purpose of "hacking" the system? To gain more? Why would you want to go through ALLLLL that effort when you can acquire all you need anyway?

Again, I've covered this in my most recent podcast, question 1. You really should do some objective research, coz I shouldn't be doing your thinking for you, should I?

Again you're STILL thinking about this in terms of the value system generated by the monetary system. PLEASE pull your head out of that and consider what value system an RBE consists of.



As I have already explained, why would anyone want to do that in a system that provides for all humanity and the dominant value system is altruistic?



Are computers naive? Do they not notice sublety if one person is somehow getting more and more and everyone else is getting less and less and theorises that somehow its original programming has been corrupted, but just shrugs it off? Keep in mind here the train of thought for the programming is the scientific method applied for SOCIAL CONCERN. I have already explained how multiple levels of redundancy and realtime analysis makes any tampering with the resource allocation systems IMPOSSIBLE.



Considering that you have clearly not done much objective research into an RBE this is understandable that you would say that.



For one thing, there is no "elite" in an RBE coz that would imply some form of social stratification. The "interdisciplinary teams" as we call them operate on a rotating voluntary basis. Meaning that if you have a means to prove that you have an optimal idea for the systems, which can be replicated and hense shown to be optimal, then you can volunteer your services towards that end. No-one will be able to nefariously implant any bogus alorythms that "subtly" distribute resources elsewhere because you would have MULTIPLE people and the system itself double-checking, triple checking, quadruple checking, quintuple checking, etc., etc., etc. Coz the idea is to continually optimise and re-evaluate the nature of how the system works to keep optimising.



There is no power. Hense no corruption. As I have explained. You really are not seeing things from outside the current value system, are you?



I have already explained how that will be impossible.



I challenge you to bring me information of a hacker that uses viruses to "hack" the internet as a whole.



This is very blatantly a symptom of our current value system. And as I have said over and over and over again, an RBE comprises a completely different and completely altruistic value system.



It's not a "quirk" of human psychology. It's a symptom of depotic values. Anyway, what stuff is "lying about"?



YET AGAIN, in our current system, yes, in an RBE, no.



I have already explained repeatedly how that is impossible.



Or rather your own opinion in leu of your half-baked research?



That is what we're in the process of doing. But can any old group of activists start up their own manhattan project-scale endeavour? It takes a hell of a lot more than that. And taking into consideration that those with the money are mostly the ones who want to keep the current system in place, even if it is gonna kill us all, then its damn hard. This "you build it and we'll come" mentality is not suprising, however if we ALL took that mentality towards everything, then NOTHING would EVER have been achieved in ANY area of human development.

Besides, as I have been explaining over and over, and RBE is not mainly about the physical infrastructure. Its about an optimal and altruistic value system. So please, pull your head out of the current paradigm and consider the new.

Too many bullet points so I won't quote, otherwise my post would be a foot long. But there is a common theme to your disagreement with me in all these bullet points. I say that the human desire for power is independent of resource availability and would not be affected by it. I think this desire is part of the architecture of the human brain. You say it is entirely cultural and in a culture with no money or hierarchies, nobody would be striving for power. You think sociopaths are made not born. I think they are born not made. This is a fundamental belief difference between us that will not be changed by more posts.

(edited to add, I realize you never brought up sociopaths. I bring up that label because they are the people most likely to mess with this system and they would be completely unmoved by altruictic ideals or availability of resources. Sociopaths mess with people and systems because they can. They are wired that way. It's not a cultural neurosis fixable by a different culture.)

You also believe that it is possible to build an unhackable system if it is sufficiently decentralized. I don't, based on internet worms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_worm

A worm can disrupt any networked system, including the internet as a whole.

Finally, on the point of a computer simulation, I'm glad to see somebody is actually considering this. But calling it a Manhattan Project scale endeavor is a cop-out. If programmers can create the Sims, you should be abble to create an RBE sim.There is no RBE plan. There is only the concept that at some point, RBE can happen. But if none of the converted are willing to do the work of trying to figure out how it could happen, don't expect the unconverted to do your work for you.

RBE needs to be about infrastructure since it is an infrastructure change on a global scale. If nobody in TZM is willing to get serious about planning the infrastructure, don't expect anybody else to either.

As for consciousness shifts? The entire 60's revolved around absolute conviction that global consciousness change could happen, Age of Aquarius and all that. Some of them even put their money where their mouth was and actually made communes built around their ideals. These communes fell apart because, as it turns out, wishing for a consciousness change and actually having one are two very different things. For real things to happen, there must be an implementable plan. So far, TZM hasn't even taken this to the level that 1967 hippies took it to when they made communes. Show a little conviction, like they did, and start trying to actually live this way rather than expecting people who disagree with you to start agreeing with you.

Last edited by Janissy on 27 May 2011, 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm sorry, human desire for power? Since when is that inherant within us? If it were, then babies would be trying to take over the world.



So you would prefer to agree to disagree, than actually do some research? Such a shame.



So you think that just coz worms exist, (which by the way, the same kind of mind-power that created them can also defend against them) irregardless of the multiple layers of redundancy, the continual checking, the continual verification both by human supervisors and by the system itself, then the ENTIRE proposal of an RBE is toast?

Let me ask you something, why would someone plant a worm into a system that feeds them?

Think about it this way. Imagine you lived in a communal flat (apartment for you american readers) with 4 other tenants and in the basement is the fusebox for the entire building. What would be the point in tampering with that fusebox? Even if there were some way to cut out everyone else's power save for your own, then a 2 year old can figure out who was more likely to have been the culprit. Its not like you can get any more power out of the fusebox. So what's the point in tampering with it? Its the same thing with the automated system. You don't harm the systems that keeps you alive. In essence, you don't bite the hand that feeds.

And even if it were possible to affect the system with a worm, what's it gonna do? Cyphen off money to a hidden account? There's no money. Allocate more resources to a specific individual or group? That would be recognised and rectified immediately coz as I have ALREADY and REPEATEDLY stated that analysis is done on a continual real-time basis. A worm, even if it penetrated the levels of redundancy (which is impossible if you actually researched redundancy) would be seen and dealt with as a minor glitch and just like the human body's immune system can deal with a repeat infection of a certain pathogen, it would have already taken a log of the worm's source code so it can recognise it again.

Also you are neglecting to think that some of the best hackers in the world will actually be working to fortify the system against these very attacks. I personally know of a few people who are damn good at hacking and would LOVE to be in the fantasy scenario of swatting off nefarious hackers like bugs from the automated systems. Hell, one of the first things that will be done when these systems are actually put into place is that they will go through RIGOUROUS testing to be made hacker-proof.

I have to stop right here and quote. I can't get past this. It's too hilarious. You don't have kids, do you? If you did, you would know that the desire for power really is hardwired. Spend a year with a 2 year old and then come back and tell me that the desire for power is cultural.

In their own incredibly limited way, babies attempt to control the world. It is a major cognitive turning point for them when they realize that screaming brings Mommy and that smiling makes Mommy smile. That's their first taste of power but their neurology is not yet ready to exercise it in full. That happens around 2. Thus it is called the Terrible Twos.

Ok, I'll read the rest of your post. But I just had to stop right there and comment because it was so hilarious. You don't spend enough time with kids. If you are married and have kids, it must be your wife who is doing all the grunt work. Power struggles are such an inevitable part of childrearing that nobody who has raised kids has the illusion that power-grabs arise only from not having enough resources (although many do arise from that, Mommy's attention being a resource that no RBE will be able to increase). The entire RBE premise is based on this idea that it is cultural rather than biological. I think the TZM-ers need to spend a little time trying to get a toddler to go to bed before they are so sure that the desire for power is just an outgrowth of not having enough resources.

"Don't (defecate) where you eat" is the slang for that. And yet people do. People are funny that way. In fact, people are more likely to vandalize a shared resource that they themselves are using than a resource they own themself and are using. They dump trash in shared parks. They vandalize the very buildings that they live in, even though it arguably makes their own quality of life lower. Housing projects fall victim to this regularly. Of course you can chalk that up to poverty, but interestingly, when poor people have ownership, they protect their space carefully- but only so long as they own it. In an RBE, nobody owns anything (how could they?). So this would happen on a global scale.

People routinely bite the hand that feeds them and harm systems that they depend on.


On to the unhackability of an RBE. Kudos to you if you can actually build an unhackable system. But that's what I mean about start writing some code. You say that no resource shifting could happen because the programs would continuously self check? Like I said, start writing some code. If you can show this can be done instead of just assuming that other people will step in and do the work for you, you have a better chance of making it happen. But if you just waste time on the internet arguing with me, nothing changes.

Ohhhhhh, I see, now I have to be a parent to be able to comment on child psychology, I see, how elitist of you. Nice to see the preisthood of credentialism also applies to when we talk about the psychologically free-est among us; Children.

Ok, can you bring me some evidence that the desire for "power" is hardwired?



Have you ever stopped to think that this isn't the thirst for power, but the thirst for base human needs? The need to eat, to drink, to feel comfortable, to be loved. Has that crossed your mind at all? No, of course not, coz it appears that you are saying that we all know of and push towards power from the get go. You don't seem to grasp that when a baby realises that crying brings forth a parent, then it is just that. They realise that since crying is their only means of communicating distress or desperate need, and that doing so brings forth that need, then they do it. Its not about power. A baby has no concept of even the most basic ethics, let alone be driven by power.

And what about the babies of parents who implement the Ferber Method? BOOM! Out the window goes the power issue.

Have you thought about the fact that someone procuring a means to acquire their NEEDS is not on par with acquiring POWER? Have you thought about exactly what DEFINES a pursuit of power and compared that with the act of pursiuing your basic needs? Coz of course, anyone who has sought power has only done so to the bounds of what they NEED, right? Yea, a zombie is in a constant state of satisfying its NEED for human flesh, but of course, in its own way its trying to acquire POWER.



Since when do I have to spend x amount of time around kids to comment? That's like saying that I have to have joined the KKK to be able to comment on their ideals concerning african americans.



Your presumptions are irrelevant as much as they are ridiculous.



Then right here you have recognised that it isn't about power, but about having your needs met.



Actually no, that's not the entire premise, so yea, I can definately tell how little objective research you have done. Its ok though, you can carry on doing no research on this, as long as you don't mind being dead wrong coz you couldn't be bothered to understand it correctly.



And I think you need to spend less time developing conspiracy theories about inherant power trips and more time thinking about the fact that children are not fully understanding of all the complex issues and inhibitions that us adults have.

Take for example the not going to bed when they are "supposed to". Would that be because they have more energy on average than we do? Have you thought about the fact that their needs might not be being met?

Maybe you should see what Dr. Gabor Mate says about babies trying to take over the world.

Tell you what, I'll pose that to Doug since he has a daughter. How about that?



Instead of just blurting this out to me, maybe you should ask yourself WHY they do this.



"People"? So not inherant from birth? Wow, that must mean that you recognise the fact that we LEARN this behaviour somewhere along the way.



Again, you should be asking yourself: WHY?



Then maybe with social therapy that is an issue that can be resolved. Think about it. If you show someone that punching themself in the face all day every day is not very good for their physical well-being, then through addressing the root cause of that behaviour and helping them find the solution through that root cause, you can get them to see the symptoms of their cognitive dissonence.

When it comes to "vandalism" of housing projects I think you are discounting a major aspect which is the "tagging" grafitti characteristic of gangs indigeounous to the area. Also the behaviour of taking out the frustrations generated by poverty.



I'd love to see a rich neighbourhood defiled by its own residents in the same manner as the poor ones. The fact that you don't see that is reflective of what the stress of poverty can generate.



Ok, the issue of private property, is something that many fail to even grasp since the idea of having your own "stuff" is such a loaded concept that in a lot of ways is proported to be a constituant of our freedom, which is actually erroneous. Let me lay down a few things before you feel the need to jump down my throat about this.

In an RBE, you will have an access abundance to what you need, and what you want to make use of. Hense the idea of personal property is:

1. A burden

2. Resource inefficient.

Lets go over point 1 first.

Why would you want to lug all this junk around with you when you can just carry around what you really need? Whichj by the way won't be much at all considering that you have an access abundance. Coz of course in an RBE you can travel the world if you want to. No facility is gonna be made to store all your crap that serves no function, so are you gonna wanna lug around a whole house's worth of junk with you wherever you go? Moving house is considered by many to be one of the top ten most stressful things a person can do in their life. And part of that stress is the moving of all your stuff from one place to another. You see we have for a long time been handed down generationally the notions and concepts of sentimentality and heritage and all this historical baggage that is completely irrelevant to our survival. We cling onto it for reasons that we think is function, when in fact its just romanticism.

Why keep that baggage? We have the technology to provide the best of everything on demand, and yet you wanna hoard crappy products for yourself that are designed to break?

Think of the issue this way. Personal Property is replaced by Access Abundance. If you need a camera for example, you just go to the distribution centre and you check one out, kind of like how a library works. And once you're done with it you return it. If however you wish to keep it, fine, but its on you to lug it around and/or store it. However the realisation here is that there is NO MORE NEED to hoard things. You see when you think about it, it's not the physical device itself you want. Its the function it performs.

And point 2: So why not save a HELL of a lot of resources and allow others to use it in a constant loop system?

This means that there's no more need for 20 different companies to produce the same damn thing (that's designed to break anyway) coz they're competing with each other for marketshare. (Multiplicity) Instead you got all the minds that want to design a camera all working TOGETHER to produce the best damn camera possible at that point in time. And no, that doesn't mean that only 1 camera is gonna exist. But just enough to facilitate a constant loop system for everyone who would have a need for it, to use one. That is FAR more efficient and ECONOMIC with respect to resources, don't you think?

And if you're still feeling precious about personal property and that you don't wanna give up your trinkets, keep in mind that I must stress this for posterity:

NO-ONE'S GONNA TAKE YOUR STUFF

Had to state that for the record so you can't misunderstand me there, but overall, when it comes to resources vs. personal property, not everyone in the world can have an equal amount of stuff. The finite resources of the planet won't allow it. So I'm sorry, but you're just gonna have to get over it.



I agree, but again, you need to ask yourself the question you're not asking. WHY?



Wow, and there was me thinking that you had it all figured out that there was no such thing as "hacker-proof". lol You see that's from actually researching into how the systems are fortified. You should try it some time.



You do know that this entire proposal of an RBE is not MY project, right? You know there are teams of people who are delegated by their own choice differing tasks and I don't happen to be part of the technology team, right? Why is it up to ME specifically to "start writing some code" when there are other people far more experienced than me already on it, and have been on it before I even heard of TZM?



People were working on this idea DECADES before I was even born, so please don't try to imply that I'm just sitting here like Caligula waiting on the fruits of other people's labour. You really haven't done much research about this, have you?

As for me "arguing" with you, you may notice if you looked at my posts with an unbiased eye that I am actually explaining things to you. Since I am the one here who is presenting this proposal to WP and you my friend are the one who is arguing about it, through the fog of your lack of knowledge about what it is you are criticising, in trying to state that it will not work.

Isn't the first rule of criticising something to actually know what the hell your talking about? Just a thought.

If you paid any attention to any of my podcasts you will know that I am doing my part given the restrictions of my time and purchasing power to push for an RBE. You however are judging me, when you are doing NOTHING to push for a better world, (if you are then please prove me wrong and show what you are doing can actually accomplish) and in fact are clearly not bothered to find out about proposals that will give us this better world. I can't think of a bigger, more despotic and more blatant form of hypocracy.

Jannisy has a point, you can't underestimate what people will do. Some people thrive on excitement and creating trouble for other people is a huge thrill. I mean take money out of the equation, and you still have people, and some people need (or crave) the attention, admiration, respect, fear, ect... of others people. I've met people like that who weren't at all interested in money.

Most reputable studies done indicate that people aren't a 100% product of their environment. Although the part the environment plays into one's development is uncertian, I doubt that altering it will eliminate deviant behavior. It would be like the field of preventive medicine eliminating disease,

Then I say that you are underestimating the cataclysmic shift in values, social relations, human behavioural reinforcements and the dramatic lowering of general stress that the movement out of the monetary paradigm will bring about.

What you see around you, the troubles in this world, is what is reinforced, promoted, and apathetically permitted. Take this forum for example. If it was moderated better then there would be no troll problems coz that behaviour would be nipped in the bud. I know of quite a few forums where moderators and admins have applied "no ad hom" rules in a bid to stop trolling and the trolls obviously didn't take notice. When they transgressed however the mods would come in and actually enforce these rules and the trolls very quickly learned that their behaviour was not gonna be tolerated and hense they lost interest in the forum and went elsewhere. That's proof positive that trolls are only being so not to actually have intellectual discussion, but to throw faeces at people coz they think they will get away with it. When they realise that their behaviour does not reward them in any way and in fact results in them being banned, then they realise that they have to grow up.

Some trolls have even attacked mods for reprimanding them stating that they are being censored and violating their first ammendment rights, which is their freedom of speech, however they conveniently overlook the fact that the very act of trolling is to psychologically dominate anyone who has a differing view of their own and verbally beat them into submission. That over time is much more of a violation of free speech, coz the forum eventually becomes a clicque of elitist trolls that dominate the conversation and people will either fall in line with what they're saying or suffer the wrath of the trolls. Allowing this to happen is a FAR greater violation of free speech.

Now apply this to a societal level and think of what the monetary system calls for in order for people to survive. You will notice that we start off well, when we teach our kids to "be nice" and to "share", "not to fight", "resolve problems", then when we prepare them for the world at large that COMPLETELY flips and the reinforcement is now, "look after number one", "me, me, me", essentially indoctrinating our kids to be selfish, monomaniacle bigots.

Coz THAT is what measures success in the world of monetary economics. Businesses don't get anywhere by looking out for human concern. It's about competition. And a system predicated upon competition cannot be altruistic at its core. Thats absolutely IMPOSSIBLE. As Jacque Fresco said on Larry King:

"What kind of competition did Jesus have? What kind of competition is there in your body? Suppose your brain said 'I'm the most important organ!' And the liver said 'I am, and I don't wanna go a free enterprise system!' You'd rot away in a month, if every organ of your body, went out for itself."

So, as a result the collective and individual neuroses you see prevalent around you in this world are the symptoms and byproduct of this despotic system. We allow murder on the grand scale, coz we delude ourselves by calling it "foreign policy". We allow theft by those in positions of power coz we recognise that that has to be "the way it has to be" if you wish to be "successful", and this psychology permeates ALL throughout society on multiple levels and manifests as the depotism that you see all around you.

In an RBE, it is completely different. The dominant value is not competition. It is collaberation. The incentive is not selfish, it is selfless, the consideration is not segregation, it is symbiosis.



I agree, there is a discrepancy there. Jacque Fresco once asked me:

"How much of you, is you, and how much of you is your life experiences?"

It's a very interesting and sometimes paradoxical question to ask yourself.

But I'm not saying we are 100% a product of our environment. Not at all. We are however MUCH more influenced by our environment than anything else. Because we are BIO-PSYCHO-SOCIAL organisms. Meaning we are affected by our environment symbiotically.



I'm not saying it will immediately erradicate all neuroses, but what it will do immediatey is remove the reinforcements of abhorant and destructive behaviour. And over time we will be able to culminate truly altruistic human beings.

When it comes to preventative medicine, the establishment wants no part of that. Coz for example, cancer is a VERY proffitable problem to TREAT, however NOT a profittable problem to CURE. Patchwork solutions to problems will only be sought if a profit can be made. And if you eliminate the problem of cancer, not only are you eliminating all the circulating currency from the administration of treatments, but you are also displacing MILLIONS of people who are employed in the TREATMENT of cancer. Right there you lose HUGE chunk of human purchasing power and no industry on the planet can absorb all those job losses so therefore GDP would plummet, and the economy would collapse.

So you see its GOOD for the economy for people to get injured and get sick. Its GOOD for the economy for people to get cancer. It is NOT good however for people to cure it, as this article will tell you:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Scientists_cure_cancer__but_no_one_takes_notice

My latest podcast is up, where I talk to Douglas Mallette, systems engineer for the space shuttle programme, talking about various topics such as the space shuttle programme, Zeitnews, chaos theory and how an RBE combats that and Doug's plans for new and exciting food production company. Enjoy

The link to the show is below.

AAUTZM Podcasts

So there you go Orwell, you have your answer about non-linear dynamics.

The podcast will be up on youtube in the usual fashion of four bitesize 15 minute chunks as soon as I get round to it.

I'm always looking for questions guys so keep em coming.

I finally got round to making my podcast into videos for youtube, so here they are. Take note Orwell, herein contains the answer to your concerns.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3XGEPQAvwM[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRN-Kd2zY4[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89p8FlLEiK8[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuwFnjUmHF8[/youtube]

I was about to mention how uneasy I was with the conspiracy theories raised by TZM, it's good to know that I'm not the only one who felt that way. Some of the more technical aspects of an RBE made more sense the way Douglas Mallette explained it. Hopefully his hydroponic farm effort works.

Have you heard of Earth 2.0? I heard of them not too long ago, they seem to be working on a tv series and a movie, from the looks of it, their staff is poised just for that, Their articles are interesting, they seem to address problems one at a time and tend to have solutions that involve more than one discipline (like architecture and biology). There is very little 3rd party information on them, but I 've gathered that they never got along with Jacques Fresco.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but JF has been working on the Venus Project for 30+ years, hasn't tried adopting any sources of renewable energy for his piece of property, and instead toys with models, and clashes with people the moment they don't embrace every iota of his ideas. I mean sure he has that futuristic design going into his buildings, and does some nifty landscaping, but it seems to me that there are people out there with a more relevant perspective, a more current understanding of different fields of study, and ideas that are just as useful in helping humanity as a whole.

Actually, TZM don't promote conspiracy theories at all. We're not about that. Coz as Doug rightfully said, if the truth really did come out about 9/11, it wouldn't change a damn thing. We're about solutions, not about problems per se.



Me too. That's why I got Doug on my podcast to shed light on things like this. Coz it gives more credence when it comes from someone like him.



Yes, they were essentially kicked to the side by TVP coz they were covering several differing topics in the film and TVP was one of them, but because TVP didn't agree with the other topics and considered them not in line with TVP they pulled out. TVP wanted the film to only contain information that they agreed with if their information was gonna be contained in it at all. It was either their way or the highway. That's also part of the reason why TVP separated with TZM. They accused Peter Joseph of trying to take the whole thing and steer it in a different direction.



Exactly. That's one of the fundamental disagreements between TZM & TVP. We want to actually ACHIEVE something, but Jacque just wants to keep making films, then a major motion picture which they will THEN use the profits of to build the first city. Well as they fail to see that their eyes are bigger than their stomachs and if they continue with it they will make a HUGE loss. As far as we're concerned, just BUILD the first city. THAT is what is gonna convince people of the validity of the proposals more, people don't need to be entertained first then contribute, just DO it and DEMONSTRATE it.

That's why the separation of TZM & TVP has turned out to be a wonderful and insightful opportunity coz we now have the freedom to collaborate with as many organisations as we please to get things done.