Was Unabomber right? Will civilization collapse?

Post Reply New Topic

And now you insult children when the fact is that they are not only future but the only ones with the vivid imaginations capable of seeing the future? Didn't you ever watch the Thunderbirds and follow their adventures in their atomic powered airplanes? I guess thanks to the environmentalists the Thunderbirds were before your time and all we have are these Dark Nuclear Lord Vaders.

Why do I need to? Does travelling not need resources? Am I ' resource-irresponsible' if I travel for no good reason?



Exactly what is your view regarding ownership? If you think it is evil and unnecessary to own anything then what is the point of becoming 'the architect of your own home'?


I have no money to do so (and there may be better use for the money anyway). lol. It is a problem only in a money-less society. On the other hand, I seem to recall that the movie argues there is no such thing as 'human nature'. Then why there is any line?


What do you mean by 'access'? And it is simply false that 'everyone else to have their own appliance regardless of whether they use it every day or once a month' outside the developed world.


It should read 'The fact that people with no common decency exist is more than sufficient to defeat your dream world.'



If the RBE is just based on common sense, then it is no wonder why it fails. Clearly your common sense is not enough to tell how things would work out in a larger system. So you have a library of DVDs. Does the library need to be managed? How to keep track of the copies (because there are people with no common decency)? Does it mean people have to go to the library? It is probably cheaper to multiple copies to sit at people's home. (Of course, downloading online is the best solution.)


What is the relevance? Utopia, RBE, heaven... are just fairy tales. And the RBE fairy tale is not even consistent.

Money is not the cause of the problem. People's stupidity is.

I'm curious, Are you ignorant, or simply cerebrally insufficient? Coz surely you can't be behaving THIS dense because of Autism or Asperger's. I have repeatedly stated that electricity is generated by solar, wind, wave, tidal, heat differential and GEOTHERMAL.

Let me state this as clear as I possibly can, just so you can't ignore it:

Nuclear power is a DINOSAUR. An inefficient, obsolete, dirty and dangerous dinosaur at that. You got that yet?



No, no, no, no, no, when will you LISTEN? That vacuum tubes only use is to ELIMINATE AERODYNAMIC DRAG.



When oil becomes FAR too expensive to buy, aeroplanes will be REDUNDANT. Hell, they already are.



And you were referring to COST earlier, considering how this technology would need o operate, how EXPENSIVE will that be?

Besides, anything nuclear powered, hybrid or otherwise, will rely mostly upon URANIUM. In of itself a FINITE resource. And I'm not even gonna go into the protocols and measures needed for the depleted uranium's disposal. You know WHY there are so many protocols and measures for nuclear materials?

Coz its NOT SAFE!

My girlfriend was in a nuclear powerplant not too long ago. Its horrible. You really can't understand the scale of it all unless you go to a plant yourself.



Considering the sheer amount of fuel it takes to exit our gravity well, do you REALLY think that using that tech is viable?



How exactly have I insulted children? I'm sorry I'm not following your erratic and illogical leaps.



I'm sorry, atomic powered airplanes? Were you on MUSHROOMS when watching thunderbirds? Thunderbirds used HYDROCARBONS for propulsion.

Yes I did watch thunderbirds, and not ONCE did I see them have a crisis of nuclear isotopes. I DID see an episode where they run out of HYDROCARBON fuel. and NOW I recognise how ridiculously wasteful, dirty, unsafe and unsustainable their huge demands of fuel are.



I was born in 1983. I was raised on Jerry Anderson shows.



Wow, the nuclear obssession with you runs deep. Seriously, you need to get help. Are you able to verbalise a sentence without the word nuclear?




If you wanna travel for no good reason, or whether you are travelling for a very good reason, the only resource you would be taking advantage of the use of is electricity, and that will be ABUNDANT.



I've just told you.



I have ALREADY explained on this very thread how I don't recognise the empty religious distinction of "evil".



You want a living environment that is suited to your own needs, and tastes, right? Besides private ownership is not outlawed. It exists in certain shadows of how it exists today. Hense my porta-potty example. Get it? And if you decide to move out of that particular home, then it can be broken down and recycled into the printing of a new home for someone else.


I have no money to do so (and there may be better use for the money anyway). lol. It is a problem only in a money-less society. [/quote]

Actually, I used that short conversation as a demonstration that in an RBE its RESOURCES that we are considering, and not money.



Because the established value set that we have now needs to create a line in order to use it as a means for punishing "criminals" for offenses under the assumption that it is a conscious decision that lead to their "crimes". The whole apparatus of the criminal justice system is predicated upon the assumption that everyomne is fully aware of what they do and what they choose, and are NOT in any way under the influence of conditioning and the aftermath of abuse. As such, this allows the "justice" system to punish people.



I have ALREADY explained this. Maybe instead of asking me to repeat myself you should pay attention. Just a thought.



How so?



And WHY do you think such people exist? Is it possibly because our current eDURRRRcational system has no clue how to correctly culminate well informed, well educated and critically thinking individuals with a firm and accurate moral base? Is it also because the vast majority that DO get tuahgt decent values have them systematically kicked, beaten and punished out of them by an established orthodoxy that needs human beings to be violent, apathetic, selfish and hateful pricks in order to fit the economic value set?

People aren't this way because of "human nature", and I have THOROUGHLY debunked that little cultural turd of propaganda.



Did I say that "common sense" was the principle driver for absolutely everything? No, of course I didn't. You're trying to second-guess me, which is not doing you any favours, in fact it takes you further away from understanding this.

When I spoke aboiut "common sense" I was talking about the PERSONAL orientation that people will have in regards to physical goods and how that plays into the outgrowing of the idea of personal property. That make sense to you now?



Of course. But not by human beings. We have huge warehaouses of goods managed by machines already. Even in certain pharmacy storage systems, you can look through a little window at the robotic arm moving back and forth collecting and storing medications. We ALREADY have the technological processes in place for automated inventory management. Ever heard of the barcode?



The same way we do right now. Obviously.



For online DVD rental services, do people have to go to the warehouse? No, they don't.



Its debateable whether its cheaper, however the monetary concern is irrelevant. What IS relevant is whether the methods are RESOURCE-EFFICIENT or not. Our current methods of mass-producing CDs, DVDs, BluRay Discs are simply UNACCEPTABLE in terms of the ridiculous amounts of resource waste that their production, manufacture and distribution and disposal creates. You are right about one things though, downloading will be FAR more efficient. No waste whatsoever. However if you look at how that very act is being criminalised, you see how much the establishment wants to protect the current music and entertainment industry regardless of its waton waste of resources, all because the music and entertainment industry needs PROFITS, and profits are not made from downloads. Not even the revenues collected by Napster is enough to cover the outgoings of the artists and record companies.



The relevence my friend is that you referred to an RBE as a "utopia". And I needed to explain to you that there is no such thing. It doesn't matter how many different distinctions you use to define it while having ZERO objective understanding of it (you're inclination to call it utopian is a clear indicator of this lack of understanding), it doesn't matter.

Not even consistent? Can you actually make points that have some substance please? What does the phrase "RBE fairy tale is not even consistent" even MEAN? Or is that the point of your unsubstantial quibblings? Do you prefer to type lots of words without actually SAYING anything and making hollow criticisms that don't even stand up to objective reasoning? Try saying something worthwhile, please.



Sorry, but I'm not gonna let you get away with this strawman cop-out. Because you're conveniently disregarding one of the root causalities of dysfunction, inequality, stratification, greed, abhorance and violence with an EMPTY supposition that has no logical weight.

Is stupidity a root cause? Well first tyo establish this as a root cause we must prove that we are stupid by nature. And no, infant children are not "stupid", they are merely uninformed, however they are perpetually curious, so that state of non-knowledge will not esist for long. And I have ALREADY debunked the human nature argument. So bye-bye to that theory.

That must mean that there is another causality BEFORE the prevalence of stupidity. Meaning that there must be something that MAKES us stupid. Taking into consideration that we are born perpetually curious, this means that there must be something in our environment that is causing us to give up on that pursuit of knbowledge and instead prefer to not know. And to suffer at the hands of this apathy. THAT is what I define as stupidity. And are we this way inherantly? Of course not. So back to the drawing board buddy. Sorry.

Let us now examine the difference between an autistic engineer and a neurotypical engineer. A famous autistic engineer by the name of Buckminster Fuller was building his prototype house of the future using aircraft technology and he drove everyone crazy by insisting that some sort of composting toilet be included as part of the design. Needless to say the aircraft executives told him that it was not his job to design a self contained sewage disposal system and later decided to cancel the project and went back to building airplanes. But what management failed to realize was that an attempt was made at designing a comprehensive whole system that takes into consideration the environmental impact of new technology rather than a piecemeal approach that ignores any responsibility for damage to the environment.

So now wouldn't it make sense from an environmentalist point of view for an atomic powered airplane to have its own built in waste disposal system just like our house of the future? The neurotypical environmentalist who's mind is tortured every time he thinks simply will say "No Nukes" while the typical Pro Nuke advocate will decommission the reactor by ditching it into the ocean because he is too tough to care about the environment. Radical autistic engineers advocate their conceptualization by insisting that every ordinary airplane used for commercial transport must have advanced Lunar flight capability. Neurotypicals while daring to acknowledge the feasibility of atomic flight would immediately dismiss the idea as insane choosing rather to limit even their atomic designs to the parameters of chemically fueled airplanes. What they fail to realize is that while acknowledging nuclear power is an unlimited energy source they view that potential as redundant or overkill.

Now the main limitations of an atomic powered airplane are not the lack of fuel for the fuel supply can be considered infinite for all practical purposes. The finiteness of the system is the propellent. But a nuclear powered jet engine has an infinite supply air that it uses as a propellent. So the atomic airplane operates near the ground orbiting the Earth and slowly building up speed. Once escape velocity has been achieved the atomic airplane is catapulted into space like a slingshot at which point the jet engine switches to the rocket mode and the airplane uses the propellent which is frozen onboard. Thus Lunar flight has been achieved and all the nuclear waste is slammed on the Moon for a permanent solution to the waste disposal problem.

Yes, on one hand you told me that the idea ownership, represented by money, is the root cause of all bad things and must be eliminated. On the other hand you say that

That is just contradictory.



If every are really that nice under RBE then why need any law at all? Another contradiction.

In the same vein, you argue that there is no such thing as human nature but you think there is such thing as

Is that human nature of not?



If you think a whole house can be recycled then why not a few CD's? Contradiction #3. The fact is you fail to show how your sharing system is any more resource-efficient.


See above.


Dose my need to travel mean there is the need for another car for me to access? More road for the car? More parking space? How about the maintenance of all of the above? Do you think they come out of thin air?



It is you who do not understand the factor of time, and hence the idea of exclusive user right. Suppose there is an island of 1 km^2 , and there are 3000 people want to build a home on it, each home using 1000 m^2 of land. Then at most 1000 people can have their wish granted. How about the other 2000? Do they simply wait for access of the land when some of the lucky 1000 move out in 10 or 20 years?


Go to an average household in North Korea or the slums in Brazil and see what appliance they have.


[/quote]
Where did I ever mentioned the word 'human nature'? You are wrong to think that simple curiosity is enough to enable one to understand complicated concepts in mathematics, economics... , or to make rational decisions based on these knowledge. HAD that been human nature we would not be having the problems we are facing - it would be nearly impossible for big companies to coax people into buying things they don't need. It is the LACK of such nature I consider as the stupidity of humans.

Just had the chance to watch the Zeitgeist movie through. Pretty much as I thought: a collection of a lot of very big truths that need to be contemplated, in many circles already are, but at the same time there is a lot of push to isolate certain dynamics and act as if these are the only things that are and have been happening, which ultimately creates some rather distorted conclusions.

Good example - in the monetary system - that the push to perpetuate business is strictly built by the ability go generate more business; to claim that is to claim that there is only one type of commercial sector and one trick to marketing. If that were the case high end goods wouldn't exist. Durability/quality-reputed goods wouldn't exist. Do you see this in some sectors yes? All, no. All across any in particular at a 100% rate? Few to none. Additionally the public health sector is not monochrome nor is any other industry - certain companies will take these angles, others regularly find other means to succeed by and obviously even if a cure for cancer kills a significant portion of the health industry it also makes a particular company or few companies who develop it very rich - hence the profit motivation to cure major illness, by managerial profit-myopia alone, will create collapse. That's how profit motive neither serves good nor evil fully as it's very capable of unintentionally doing lots of both. Much like big oil companies as well - knowing their days are numbered, have no choice but to shift focus, they can either do that or admit to their shareholders that they're dying and will be fully bankrupt by the time that broad-based commercial use of oil stops being a viable reality.

The notion that the solar and alternative fuels industries are stagnating because of lack of profit margin is also absurd - that may well have had some truth in 2000 or 2005, in 2011 just by the speed of technology its sounding more and more like a myth. Again, claims were being made as early as 2009 if not earlier that solar is passing oil and coal for lower cost per kilowatt hour in much of the industrialized world, another doubling or two make it more profitable in the most populace 2nd/3rd world nations as well.

With the starvation in places like Africa it also ignores that you can take all kinds of food in - we have for years - and as the commoners try to get it the warlords will be shooting them dead. In essence there are group fighting each other, preventing progress, and the commoner in that equation is destroyed in the process. We have tried for years to throw food and money at the problem with little success. The day the UN actually stands for peace keeping in such nations is the day they'll actually fill the boots that they're intended to. Is it right to say that its the fault of these countries that they're war-torn? Not entirely. Is it right to say that its the fault of European colonization or exploit? Not entirely. We still also treat civil war and genocide in places like Sudan or the Congo as their own internal problem that no one should intercede in, to take actions we have to understand the consequences of human lives that we input to the situation as well as those of combatants just like if we sit back and do nothing we have to realize that it will be these groups continuing to commit genocide against one another.

On the natal and early childhood development videos regarding human nature and violence is that that while the information was great and while a lot was said about how natal and childhood reality shapes the adult - it claimed, believably, that its a big shaper. It never claimed that its the only shaper nor that it was the majority shaper - because it can't. Friction of natural selection is something that's areligious and amonetery. friction of ability and accountability are also areligious and amonetary. Its not to say that the influence of these factors isn't diminished in a positive way by having a better and much more psychologically healthy society, just that they will always need to be considered in finding positive outlets. Consumerism pretty much acts as a soft-science in and of itself - ie. it sees what's already there in, dare I say it, 'human nature' - it then extracts, much like capitalism, both our best and worst traits, sometimes more worse rather than better depending on the particular culture of the environment that you're working, living, or buying in.

That said there's a lot done in the movie to demonize capitalism, a lot very big and valid potential flaws were pointed out but they aren't pointing out that every system replaces a system that was worse than it was - feudalism was obviously worse and what replaces capitalism by popular demand and for practical purposes will be better providing that we don't have bloody revolution; that would of course most likely lead back to despotism. That seems to be part of the concern with oil collapse - that no one knows which way it will go. Its all highly speculative there though - just how much alternate energy techs will have a role in a safe transition. With the sheer speed of technological movement right now I stick by my earlier prediction - capitalism and profit motive will actually end up being a positive facilitator of the new system's replacement of itself and it won't be a matter of capitalism needing a hard shut down in order for the new system to begin but rather one will taper into the next.

My criticism of the narration - they give good points of concern, they give what I would call good 'potential' models of what could be - to be criticized, to be thought over, picked through for problems, etc.. however it still has its share of propaganda and there is perhaps in certain corners a need to paint it all one color.

Still worth watching as it collects, builds, and links certain points into a dialog but when we do get to a new system of the likes that Jacques Fresco has envisioned - my best estimate is that it will perhaps bear a 40% similarity. Obviously the movement of human culture can't be done immediately but more so the need to travel, the need to meet new people, to switch cities, the issue of these cities being built in such a way where they're in a sense kept from growing properly; that kind of thing will need to be revised. Other than that though the 3d printing and more practices of stereo lithography into durable goods sounds great, I can agree that you will find enough people out there in such a society to volunteer for the welfare of societies since the work motive is brought on by a need for self-worth, its why people typically will volunteer to begin with. That said though I still have my doubts that there will be no problems, if people are left to have too much time on their hands new social problems will emerge, which is not to say that a new system is a bad idea (especially with the current unsustainable) but you have to remember - the human condition and human mind are complex. Every time someone has a new idea on how to solve our biggest problems it'll be two steps forward and one step back because as problems get solved we'll see new problems created just by power-vacuums building in people's lives. Yes, a new, better, and more egalitarian system that works will reduce discomfort but as for answering people's questions of who they are, why they're here, or how they'll ever find fulfillment in living that's something that everyone has to figure out for themselves and as different as every human being is certain solutions will work for some people, others will need different solutions, and just like a lot of people will like whatever comes to replace current capitalism/socialism/whatever there will be plenty of people who will have valid reasons not to like it. Nothing in the universe, especially when it comes to us, will ever be a panacea.

I never said that ownership is the root cause of all our problems, did I?



Not at all. I also find it interesting that you quoted my first point about "human nature" but said nothing in response.



I never said that laws would exist in an RBE. And that's the point. THEY WON'T. Because they are no longer needed in a world where advanced technology provides for the needs of humanity, and a value system shift has occured.



Of course not. Common sense is a LEARNED behaviour just like anything else. Now cut the logical fallacies and stop expending all your energy desperately trying to disagree and argue against people, and instead spend energy on considering information.



I never said CDs can't be recycled.



Of course you feel that way, you're not listening. and have made it your job here to do whatever you can to disprove what I'm saying.



Referring to a previous vaccuous statement doesn't make what you're saying any truer.



Why would you want to travel by car when you have high speed mag-lev trains and monorail systems? Even if you wanted to, remember me saying that personal automotive transport will operate on a constant loop system like a car rental service works today? Think about it.



Do roads not already exist? Or is it like the scene from Wallace and Gromit where Gromit had to keep laying down sections of track as he went?



Parking spaces? Do you realise that 80% of the functioning life of a car is spent parked somewhere? How is that efficient? Why would you want to park a car anywhere when that car you have just temporarily finished using can go off by itself and tend to the transport needs of someone else? Then when you need the USE of a car, you simply call up the use of one. This isn't so difficult to grasp.



In an RBE, there is no money, so there is no need to deliberately design and build things badly so they break and/or become obsolete quickly so that more money can be made by repairing/servicing/maintaining/updating/replacing. That's just completey ass-backwards, illogical, unintelligent and manipulative.

In an RBE we make the very best. Meaning that everything is built TO LAST with the best materials, knowledge, methods and processes at that point in time. Without planned obsolescence OR multiplicity. Such a practise is FAR more resource-efficient and intelligent.



Of course not. And to imply that I think so is rather condescending of you. Physical goods are not produced the same way our money is produced today. Out of thin air. Don't believe me? Research "Fractional Reserve Banking" which EVERY bank in the world operates under.



Is it possible for you to say something of substance instead of empty statements that prove nothing?



Why does each home HAVE to be 1000 m^2? Why does it have to be set up to deliberately leave a certain amount of people left with nothing? Howabout ALL of them get over themselves and accept the fact that in the finite environment they can't demand anything that leaves others wanting, and instead figure a system where they can ALL have something? Your strawman arguments are not doing you any favours.



How the hell is THAT an accurate example of how access abundance works, or doesn't work?



Very well, if you're not implying it, then what ARE you implying? Inherant behaviour? That's just another way of saying human nature.



You're obviously out of touch with the curiousity you were born with.



If there IS anything in our "nature", it would be curiosity, and specific human needs. Such as love, compassion, physical contact, or what Dr. Gabor Mate refers to as "a non-stressed, emotionally available, atuned nurturing parenting care giver".

However you are severely underestimating how MALEABLE we are as a species. We are capable of everything within the spectrum of possible human behaviour. In other words we are capable of the most altruistic kindness, or the most gruesome cruelty. ALL due to conditioning.

As such we can have certain behaviours and traits programmed in, and out of us. Such is the reason why children are perpetually curious, and by the age of 18 they don't even want to know about anything. When I interviewed Jim Phillips from tzmeducation.org, also a good friend of mine, he gave an example of a 17 year old who claimed that in an RBE he would not be willing to learn. Jim explained to him that as a child he was continually curious and the kid agreed, and Jim then said "At the tender age of 17 you're standing before me and you're saying you DON'T wanna learn. You need to point the finger of blame at this school, the teachers and this society that has all but kicked out of you your natural curiosity"



Watch the documentaries "Century of the Self", "Consuming Kids: The Commercialisation of Childhood" and "Psywar" and you will see how hapless consumers have had their attention and purchasing power torn between, as you call it: "big companies to coax people into buying things they don't need".



I see that you are redefining your terms now in the light of your strawmwen being burnt to the ground. I'm sorry, but I can't base any solid scientific evidence upon something that is built upon nothing more that what you "consider".

Do you mean Zeitgeist: The Movie, or Zeitgeist: Moving Forward?



Not necessarily. Its about money. That's the bottom line WHEREVER you look in business. Its all about money, and making as much of it as possible REGARDLESS of the consequences. There's no conspiracy, its just business as usual.



Nope. There are multiple methods of marketting. If you've ever worked in marketting, you'll know that first hand.



This is because you're not taking into consideration the structural classism that is built into the system. You HAVE to create an upper class to comprise those who already control the vast majority of industry and commerce. Not only that but you have to create the ILLUSION that the wage slaves could one day be a PART of that wealthy 1%, or at least the illusion that everyone could live comfortably and not have to worry about money ever again as long as they work harder. Otherwise there isn't any other carrots you can dangle in front of the donkey that have the same superficially motivating effect. Its the same reason why they put up signs in slave camps reading something to the effect of "Hard work will grant your freedom".



Maybe you need to watch that particular part of the documentary again. There is no profit under the current system of solving ANY problem. Because with problems, arise profittable ways of patchworking "solutions" that don't fix the problem at its root, and hense the patch wears off again, causing those who placed the patch to do it again. Why do you think its a very proifittable practise for road maintenence workers to use tarmac that cracks, pits and breaks? Because they can then make MORE money fixing the road that they have already fixed NUMEROUS times in the past.

Now apply this to the cancer industry. Would you prefer a one-time fix option, that COMPLETELY solves the problem, which you MAY profit from, but only once, ORRRRRR, would you prefer a patchwork treatment that does nothing to cure cancer at all, and you CONTINUALLY make profits from society's CONTINUAL dependance upon YOU, the industry providing this treatment?

Considering that EVEN WITH the example of the cancer industry, you have clearly showed favour to the profits of the elites, is it a suprise to you that you are fighting the fact that the healthcare industry DOESN'T want to cure cancer?



I find it incredible that people STILL think that money does us ANY good as a species.



Of course they have a choice. However the choice they make is to continue to stick to the oil paradigm until it is all gone. And as I have explained to you, and as Z:MF has explained to you, there is just too much money in fast expiring oil.



No-one said they're stagnating. In fact, they are slowly gaining ground. Did you know that the majority of Iceland's energy is gained through Geothermal?



Of course its a myth. Its in the oil industry's interest to perpetuate the propaganda that renewable energy is weak. But as I have said, this is not a view that is propagated by Z:MF.



I know. However as you will find when you apply economics 101 to energy, an abundance of energy is NOT profittable. Profit is found prevalent in SCARCITY. Not abundance. And in fact, 1 hour of sunlight at high noon provides more energy than the entire planet uses in a year. Does this sound profittable to you considering what I have already stated?



Comic Relief, a charity predicated upon helping poverty-stricken countries has been going on for the last 25 years. As is ALSO the poverty that they have promised to end. You see, despite the MILLIONS that are raised each year for these countries, it dioes NOTHING to change the reason WHY those countries are impoverished.



As I have explained, the warlords aren't the only obstacle for that success.



They will never do that. There's no money in peace.



Is it an innocent kid's fault for being bullied? Of course not. Same with third-world countries.



The exploitation doesn't have to be European. However poverty-stricken countries didn't do this to themselves.



Of course. Blame the person themselves for their own suffering and it firmly sets the blame association.



Absolutely. And until we address the root causes of our problems and seek the proper solutions through that root cause will we EVER progress or solve anything.



That section was to DEBUNK the human nature and genetics argument. It wasn't intended to name any "shapers" per se.



What relevance does that have?



You're not making sense anymore. Seems you're stringing words together now without actually saying anything. If I'm understanding you correctly, then you're agreeing with me when I say that consumerism shapes us into what it wants us to be in oder to keep it going.



So you're in SUPPORT of capitalism?



Popular demand isn't necessarily educated mass consensus. Keep that in mind. But what is wrong with showing EXACTLY what is wrong with capitalism in the pursuit of continual evolution of economic sensibilities?



I agree.



If there were realistically such a thing as a "safe transition", then as many as necessary. We already have the ability to provide the earth with all its energy needs and much more, forever, with existing tech.



If capitalism needs a "hard shut down" as you call it in order for any progress to be made, how can it in of itself be good for progress?



What "propaganda" do you refer to? Come on, you need top stop making blank statements and back up what you're saying.



Similarity to what? Our current system? I don't think so.



Nowhere in either my own or TZM's material is the claim that culture will change quickly.



Then by all means suggest how a city, built within an economic model who's constituant principles include EMERGENCE can "grow", considering that we live on a finite planet.



The incentive system in an RBE isn't just aimed towards raising self-worth. Its about self-interest becoming social interest. Doing what you do for the betterment of society not for money, or fame or any superficial reward, but because that very act of bettering society and the system is its OWN reward, and an honour, in addition to the fact that anything you do to make the system and society benefit, also comes back to benefit you.



Then maybe you need to rewatch the part on incentives. Not only that, but the youtube link I sent you by myself dealing with the human nature argument? I go onto explore incentives in the following question.



Surely you have seen enough evidence to not bring up the human nature thing again right? Even if you phrase it as "the human condition".



Is this speaking from previous experience of the human race moving OUT of the monetary system?



You're saying that people have an EASIER job doing that while being perpetually distracted by continually earning money in their slave-labour jobs just so they can earn the money to survive? If you feel that is the case, then you obviously have never tried to propose an alternative economic model to anyone who has a full-time job, debt up to their eyeballs and a family to feed.

What would you say to the ability of someone who doesn't need to worry about the costs of living, a job and boss that continually drain their spirit away, the never-ending need to earn money and the stress that comes with monetary living? Someone who is actually free to ENJOY life? Would you say they will be better equipped and better suited to figure out what "life", "the universe", "the potential of the human mind" are?

And with such freedom, do you HONESTLY think ANYONE will feel any constraint as to how they can go about their own journeys towards discovery and happiness?



There's nothing in our material or our intentions which dictates that we advocate, condone, use or propose the use of force or coersion in any form towards anyone. If they want to live sustainably, then they will. If they don't then they are free to live however they want.



TZM doesn't claim to hold the "panacea". As I have explained numerous times, an RBE is not a utopia. Its not perfect. Its just a great deal better than what we call normality.

There is no cancer industry. There are oncologists. There are oncology departments in hospitals. There are hospitals devoted entirely to cancer. There are anti-cancer drugs. But I don't think that's enough to consitute an industry. It's just a sub-set of the healthcare industry. If cancer disappeared right this minute, oncologists would have to find a new specialty and cancer departments and hospitals would need to de-specialize in order to start treating different types of patients. But that's easier than you might think given that so much of the equipment could be used for non-cancer uses. (I have no idea how long it takes a doctor to find a new specialty.) Pharmaceutical companies wouldn't be hurt because they have so many other things bringing in money. It is probably only oncologists themselves who would have a tough time adapting.

You are also forgetting about the industries that would instantly benefit if cancer disappeared. Insurance companies would be at the top of that list. They would still collect the same amount of money to insure people but would suddenly never have to pay for another costly cancer treatment. Nobody pays for that out of pocket. It all comes from insurance companies. So they would instantly benefit and I doubt they would instantly lower their premiums to adjust until the government forced them to (if it ever did). Other, lesser beneficiaries would include all businesses in general who lose worker time to lengthy cancer treatments and especially benefitting would be businesses accused of causing cancer who have lost money in settlements. Imagine what a boon it would be to the tobacco industry if lung cancer was no longer a threat!

The world is full of diseases and the healthcare industry would be in no financial danger whatsoever if one of them went away. But what if all of them went away? (I'm not saying that's possible.) The health care industry would be left with nothing but trauma. Would it collapse? Nope. I think it would adapt and morph into an enhancement industry. It already dabbles in that with viagra, minoxidil and cosmetic enhancement plastic surgery. The balance would just wildly shift.

You are underestimating how adaptable people are (and it is people who make up industries). You are also forgetting the balance that when one thing in the equation goes down, another goes up. A cure for cancer would bring smoking back in full force, for example.

I'll play a bit of conspiracy too. If oncologists are threatened by this guy, maybe they are trying to shut him down. But if he has a real cure, don't you think the tobacco industry would be pumping him full of money so they could go back to selling cigarettes at the scale they used to?

If you want to dispute what I'm saying about the cancer industry, then please take this to the appropriate thread that I have already started.

Scientific evidence that this can be done, please.


Nonsense. Are you saying that we will be using the same road or meglev system if there are another billion of people who want access 'for no good reason'?


Except
1) people tend to use the car around the same time of the day so a far greater number of cars are used AT SOME TIME OF THE DAY
2) One needs to wait for a car to arrive. In order to keeping time reasonable you need even more cars as reserves.


Are you implying therefore these machines need no maintenance? I am not aware of any aircraft or train or space shuttles 'being deliberately designed and built things badly so they break and/or become obsolete quickly'. Indeed, I bet the ultra complicated access system needs more maintenance than the appliances it shares.

And if you think it is OK to build a house and then recycle a house then what is wrong with doing the same with cars or appliances?


Or because you are just repeatedly uttering the vacuous words like 'access abundant', 'resource efficient', 'shift in value'...



It is you who assert there is abundance of access. Why there is a need to figure out a system?

[quote


Of course not. And to imply that I think so is rather condescending of you. Physical goods are not produced the same way our money is produced today. Out of thin air. Don't believe me? Research "Fractional Reserve Banking" which EVERY bank in the world operates under.
[/quote]

That is precisely why we have an abundance of money floating around.


You are just second guessing me.


Where did I change my definition? You are the one that is redefining the terms

The movie, which is what you'd linked.


Well, its really about consumer demand which equals money. If a company ends up with a terrible reputation, it suffers. If a company ends up being run on 60 Minutes for ethical exploitations or creating artificial barriers to improvement (such as pharma companies creating analogs to renew patents and prevent generic drugs from coming out on the market) - these things do see the light of day and there are many watch dogs pushing for those kinds of stories to be broken.


Glad we both agree on that. Hence the issue of inefficiency and cheapest and most breakable goods possible represents segments of certain industries - not all industries, not the economy as an absolute whole.


I don't really follow you're argument there? A 'wage slave' still has two choices when say buying an appliance - buy quality or buy twice. Often enough they can do either or.


In that sense I consider this the beauty ( ::SARCASM:: ) of government work- the orange barrels go up when spring comes, only come down around fall and little is done, they'll be going right back up next year.


My question to this - what happened to your 'F--- all' take on capitalism here? If a particular pharma company comes up with a one time cure for cancer, why would they sit there and think "You know, we really need to sit on this - think of all the doctors, nurses, and kemo treatment companies we're screwing over". That much seems a bit nonsequitor. Its not all one big company, all one big conglomerate, its a bunch of competing companies, competing hospitals, all trying to outdo each other. To cure a disease means not only that you'll have you're name etched almost indelibly into the list of corporate heroes in society; particularly if you're pharma, the number of great new employees you'd get just by having that name with all the college graduates stepping all over each other to work for your particular company, for all the money that government would be giving you - its a bit like a college trying to beat every other school in the nation in football or basketball for the sake of drawing in more students - for a cancer cure, multiply that by at least 5 or 10 times in magnitude.


I'm saying that your explanation seems to want something, want a view, want an outcome, rather than parsing the lines of what's desired and what isn't. That's part of the problem I have with the movie as well; yes, its done to motivate people in a certain direction but people don't like it when they're having blinders put on them to see a very specific angle and where that angle is being dug out much deeper than it really is to accomodate the ultimate point - getting to the topic of propaghanda that's what it is typically, not blatant lies but rather an attempt to guide and persuade people by taking a causal framework and digging it deeper and stronger than it necessarily is and trying to push it as well along a highly emotional framework to sort of shut down the second-guesses. Some of the people who were interviewed in the movie were fine, particularly you're guy that you mentioned several times, but Peter Joseph weaves the whole thing together in a way that feels incredibly adolescent - he'd have a much better movie if he would have just had someone a bit better at discourse narrating the thing.



I didn't know that we were arguing about that right now? I just indicated that a very one-sided picture was painted of capitalistic greed. I see nothing wrong with detailing and examining the ugly side of it but, its not an accurate set of dynamics if you discount half of what's happening. I'm also not sure on how you'd ever have been able to attain such a pure and efficient barter system in the past that anyone else aside from the rich could own a home without the fractional reserve or inflationary system.


Except that economic shutdown from having no other infrasctucture in place f***s an oil exec as much as it does anyone else. Everyone's life gets worse if when a time comes transcontinental shipping of produce and merchandise is no longer practical and all the stores start closing. As sheeplike as the average citizen is painted in Zeitgeist (for the sake of explaining a dynamic) we're not all sheep, nor are those in the private sector, and, would you figure that big corporations like GE don't see a huge opportunity coming to save the day and make all kinds of money on electric cars once the public *really* knows they need them?


I've seen something on their geothermal, I believe they have some pretty good-sized dams as well.


These companies are already making money hand over fist, I suppose it'll just be a matter of time before national advertising starts popping up in force.


Um... its extremely profitable for the company who decides to do it - who gets dollar votes from both ends; cheap energy and sustainability? Like the pharma company with a cure for cancer I don't think they'll have too long of an altruistic moment thinking "Wow, we're really going to miss our competitors". They're more worried with making money themselves than they are screwing over the coal and oil-based electricity providers. This is why its a great thing that its many companies competing rather than one company sitting back and holding all the cards.


Lets go on:


Right, there are others:


The UN is pretty much the US's version of the Palace of Versailles - keep our friends close and our enemies closer. It helps to keep dialog as well on issues as well as exposing rogue regimes like Libya or Iran for who they were.


Well, I forgot a third factor as well - not only was there colonialism, people around the world and cultures around the world haven't necessarily grown into technology as fast as others. Its based on their societal structures and what events they historically go through. By most evidence that I'm aware of Africa would still likely be hunter gatherer and perhaps some forward areas of science but still it would be much further back in terms of technological development than it is today without colonialism - not at all saying that Africans are lesser people, its saying that hunter/gatherer societies in a plentiful landscape have no push or driving need to innovate - hence they don't, in that sense innovation was a stress that was placed on the continent by outside peoples, much like the middle east is incredibly wealthy in areas that have oil which, without that, would be considerably more modest in terms of means and technology.

That said, in a sense its no one's fault that there is starvation in 3rd world nations or that there are 3rd world nations. By the way the world, the globe, our home, evolves people themselves when you look at societies and that we all face our own endemic challenges based on geopolitics - its more realistic to say that what happens happens, especially when you do look at feuds that, in some cases and some places of the globe, have gone on for close to a millennium and the participants are born into it having no idea why they're supposed to hate another group. Its not to say that people shouldn't try to step in and help, its not to say as well that other cultures haven't historically exploited other cultures who they could overpower, its just to say that if we're looking for causes in the 20th and 21st century we're looking way too far upstream in history and it's as idiotic to say its their fault as it is to say its the fault of America or capitalism.



They did and they didn't. 'They' is such a liquid and generational thing as well that its barely a useful tool in a lot of ways. It helps a great deal to understand the history of a conflict, the history of a poverty issue, of the means by which a previously rich country became arid and its people are starving as - when help is given - it can give some ideas of what to watch out for, what could happen again, and from that knowledge of history things can be put in place so that the help isn't just a temporary patch or some useless supplies or money thrown at an issue so we can turn away from the TV simply feeling better about ourselves.


Well, I'd blame scarcity and I'd blame the twisted charismatic a***holes who were in charge that sparked the whole thing into motion. Any culture, any group of people come in all varieties and its fair to say that its one or even several groups of people of west African or east African descent who initially caused the problem, but it incredibly unfair to call the whole nation 'them' in that sense.


If something has been spiraling out of control for years it can require military action, however what's much more important is what's done to secure that society for itself once that action has been taken, great example Charlie Wilson's War. If you've ever read Sun Tsu's The Art Of War, its a very short book - perhaps 65 to 70 pages, its an incredibly insightful set of texts though and one of our world's biggest problems is you'd swear very few people in the military leadership of any western or even nonwestern country have read it. What's the general summary of the book? If you have to send soldiers into battle you already missed enough opportunities the right the situation that you've already failed in a major sense. Once you're knee-deep in your own sh-- the best place to attack is supply line and moral. Before you find yourself in the sh--, espionage, supporting leaders in those countries who will undermine the enemy base in power, etc., is the important thing.

Another problem with some conflicts around the world though, they began long before the US even had slaves, let alone before the time we were enlightened to emancipate or guarantee equal rights. We've been civilized in the sense that we are today for well less than 100 years, I think that's a good part of why the world is still a hot mess today politically as well as having dictators press their thumbs down into starving people; eminence of reason is still too new and in many places is still hasn't fully developed because all societies around the world are not in the same place in time.


It offers a suggestion that in terms of 'evil' actions that there may be more environment than previously thought. It doesn't however debunk the human nature or genetic arguments on the terms that they're really meant (which I will get to and explain a few quotes down)


It means that there is nothing that TZM, RBE, or TVP weild that solves these problems. These are problems indifferent to money, atheism/theism, and scarcity. They're endemic to being a living carbon-based creature on the face of this earth. Its something where, if you actually sit back and watch a nature show about chimpanzees, about lions, about elephants, about crocodiles, about different types or birds or fish - it gets really clear just how much like them we are and when you examine how it is that we're like them and the stresses that causes them to do both the positive and seemingly stupid things they do - it generally comes down to genetic health. Genetic health is the same reason many species allow their weak to be eaten, have strong-arm tests (fights really) in constant motion to see who's allowed to mate and who isn't, or why apes will murder the crippled on an impulse that they look different. To not see a direct line between this and something like human pettiness takes some powerful dogmatic determination.

It gets even more interesting when you see many religious people either acting very animalistic in certain ways because they have no language for such (they aren't animals - they're god's children) or that you see them cutting holes in their holy texts and doing whatever they need to do, as its practical, and strangely it almost always seems like its only people like autists/aspies that get so wrapped up in the facts that they don't know how to be animals and even seeing it can't make sense of it because they're believing and buying the facts but in a way where, if no one ever told them that we're all animals first and people second, they themselves would never be able to put it in a framework and go on - sometimes for their entire lives - completely baffled on why the world works the way it does, on certain things completely without speech or overt rules of conduct. Reason being - they're missing the underlying shape and contours of the reality they live in while other people aren't.


I don't know what's missing here - advertisers exploit what's there to be exploited in people. The art of sales is something that's been around forever and as long as people have been around they've been trying to perfect the ways to get other people to do what they want. With the advent of modern psychology and the ability to conduct surveys its even gotten stronger.

So no, I guess I'm arguing the opposite - consumerism doesn't shape us as much as our inherent and largely immovable nature has shaped its techniques.


That's a useless question. You might need to ask me do I support capitalism in contrast to "", something - anything, not just hanging it out there by itself. I think every economic system we have is an improvement on the last and that, so long as we don't see an all out cataclysm that brings us right back to primitive circumstances, what we have after capitalism will be better than capitalism, what we have after that will be better than it as well. Societies outgrow things, and what works in a certain few centuries may not work in the next. When those particular times come, obviously, things do need a change-up.


Nothing, that is until you make claims about the whole of the economy that are only true if its all black rather than some form of gray in the middle. Without the lopsided perspective and more tempered narrative Zeitgeist could have been both significantly better and even gotten more critical acclaim. I won't say that this doesn't happen on the right either - Ben Stein's 'Expelled' brings up a whole bunch of big topics but reeks of the same one sided moodiness.


I think the ones that will lead the charge are those that can work with the delivery grids that we already have or even be easier, part of why I'm really optimistic about solar as well as just how localized it can be (ie. per each house). Wind seems lossy, the optimal range puts it in very specific geographic locations where if its needed for a given time perhaps it may flourish but I'm pretty certain that solar will overtake it, same with geothermal unless - perhaps in a place like Iceland - latitude may still make it more cost effective for a long time to come.


Maybe I'm misunderstanding this but, isn't Zeitgeist making something of a claim that the big oil bust will be the turning point where public wakes up and realizes that capitalism doesn't work? That's a hard shut down. A transition would be when that hasn't happened, but, the loss of jobs climbing sky high with no replacement starts changing society's needs in ways that bring consensus toward new systems. I won't say that Jacques Fresco did bad for one person dwelling on the matter but we'll have many nations dwelling on the matter, with that taken into account it will be a given that the results will be better.


A big one I already discussed - the notion that profit motive comes up with strictly negative outcomes and inefficiency, that it by no means will be part of the solutions or steps toward a better system. I won't pretend that free will exists or that we aren't all - each and every human being breathing - automatons of the universe, nothing that exists or ever has existed has ever been otherwise, but I will say that we're highly complex and wherever we can find a win-win situation where profit meets making the world a better place, most people will take that approach. The good news is - the corporate sector isn't necessarily the Wallstreet sector, just like shareholders. Lets just say the the universe, as unthinking and unsentient as it is, just happened to imbue us with that trait by chance (and yes - perhaps it did aid our evolution particularly as society's needed unity not to be conquered).


Whatever ultimately happens - if things go the way he says they will - the end result, even if its something like RBE, will look at best 40% like Jacque Fresco's model. Obviously, and I doubt you'd disagree with me, an idea on paper and then the successful implementation of that idea usually won't look all that similar, they may be similar in spirit or aim but there will always be loads of issues that weren't there in theory (and - unfortunately - no one's imagination is that good to be able to think of them all and weight them against each other to come up with a truly clairvoyant image of what society needs and will be when all is said and done).


I feel like I might be missing something here now. If people are given free reign over their bodies, procreation could take on any pace. I suppose since RBE's never been done in human history there's no proof one way or another that every couple in every city wouldn't average 2.2 kids per family, lose .2 in youth, and that 2 adults would create two children who'd grow to adults to create two children. Regardless of that even I'm sure you'd have lots of people still wanting to be in places like Los Angeles where the weather's an incredibly 84 degrees Fahrenheit and and sunny all year long. Youth would still be drawn to those places, much like teens and twenties would always like surfing and skateboarding more than 50-somethings or 60-somethings. Ie. you'd still have to deal with changing demographics based on personal preference, just like many people around many countries like to live where the rest of their family is.

I'm just saying - while some of the infrastructure planning like sewer and water makes sense, you'd still need to have plans on how to build upward, outward, how to deal with shrinking cities, because ultimately we're still a dynamic race with dynamic wants.


There's have to be no self for that to be accomplished. Otherwise there's self interest, there's social interest, and then there are the places where self interest and social interest overlap - we have that now and I don't see any proof that we'd be dealing with the same in a RBE.


Its not a debunked myth though. From the best understanding I have of your arguments you seem to indicate that people look around, see society as a mess, think "Huh, must just be how we are" and its really scarcity x monetary system and consumerism creating the whole thing to begin with. Unfortunately for that take its an incredibly pedestrian understanding of what people mean when they say 'human nature' (or animal nature for that matter) or the 'human condition'. If 'human nature' were restricted to the exact way your defining it and people coming to that conclusion just came from intellectual laziness your answer would perhaps work. The problem with that - its not even close to being the real argument. We live in a world, as animals, where we have failing genes. We have liabilities and can harm each other as well through sheer negligence or through people who are not cognitively able to take on certain tasks being forced to do so (which - in favor or RBE, capitalism more often forces people with mental disabilities or non disableds with shorter mental stature than they let on into roles they shouldn't be in and where they do harm simply because you need a job to survive). Human limitations are what define 'human nature' and 'human condition'. When I say human limitations I'm not at all talking about human behavioral limits or excuses of why people can't change so much as I'm talking about our inherent frailties - as genetic beings with limited mental accuity, different realities forged by different experience, perhaps as well realizing that after this we may stop exististing, some people being a happy as you're average chocolate lab with just being alive while for other people, just on how their brains wire it all together, they live every day wishing it could be the last. That's the kind of stuff that RBE can't fix, and it would be absurd to pretend that any monetary or resource system would fix it - because its a set of problems that, in the specific way that they happen to be natural and endemic, RBE or anything else would be arbitary. Its not to say that RBE couldn't interact with these issues better than capitalism would when its time comes, just that these issues would, regarldless - even in a lesser amount - still exist.



I don't get it - what part of your argument *needs* full purity of environmental conditioning and nonexistence of hereditary or 'because we have DNA at all' type issues? In a sense it seems like the way you're putting this is even much more religious than anyone's opinion that I saw in the Zeitgeist movie itself. Its one to thing to say that RBE could significantly help alleviate the weight of human nature and the human condition, its a completely other and - dare I say it - mystical - claim, to assert that it not only doesn't exist but that you've already debunked it.

If anything it seems like you're making the existence of the human condition out to be way more of an Achilles heel than it is.


Its been like that for everything and anything humanity has ever done. What makes exiting the monetary system a special case?


To answer the first question in the first paragraph of your reply - no, I don't think its easier necessarily under capitalism. My point is that its an issue that isn't going anywhere, it'll be with us as long as we exist. My point in bringing it up - its an issue that hangs out of what seems to be your interpretation of what RBE can do. This is also why I really don't think it'll be quite as idealistic as what Jacques Fresco brought up. For the human nature issues I brought up as well as this, if a new system comes up it will likely take both the best and most practical ideas that Jacques Fresco came up with, pitch what's impractical, and at the end of the day you'll have something intended to be RBE but that addresses 'human nature' and the endemic challenges of the 'human condition' as best as they possibly can be addressed.


Not sure I understand why you phrased it that way. There are tons of reasons why people wouldn't like this system where sustainability would not be their primary problem with it. There's no such thing as a system that everyone likes nor is there such thing as a system that suits everyone. There's nothing wrong with saying RBE wouldn't perhaps suite a lot more people than capitalism if it came to pass, just that to claim that it would suite everyone's wants and needs is unrealistic and, yes, somewhat mystical.


I'm glad you finally said that, but if baffles me even more why you need to keep insisting that there's no such thing as human nature, human condition, or no imaginable reason why you'd make the assumption that RBE would make interpersonal or human issues disappear to the extent that you keep claiming. I don't know if its a misunderstood definition of terms that we're debating? If that's the case perhaps half the conversation we've had has just been a misunderstanding.

Regardless I'm not outright against RBE or anything like that, just that I maintain the view that it will make an appearance on its own if it is the right way forward and I maintain the opinion that capitalism will morph into something like RBE as economic realities changes and, when you get the final rendering of something like RBE in practice it will likely look - perhaps not be - like what we have now, likely much more efficient than raw product competition but you'll still never have perfect economy of scale, you'll likely still have cars sitting in parking lots and a few more toasters than the one in the center of the village and likely in a few more colors, makes, and styles; yes we're altruists, and yes we're individualistic - neither really being mutually exclusive.

Ever heard of "Epigenetics"?

Do you SERIOUSLY need scientific evidence that we are capable of everything from helping an old lady across the road, to sodomising a corpse? And do you need sciuentific evidence, that we aren't all initially cpable of that temporally due to our learnt moral code? That's a result of conditioning. If you can't see that plain as day like we all do, then I'm sorry, but you need help.



Is there only one road currently, for getting from one place to another? Don't be ridiculous. I'm starting to get the sense that you are NOT looking outside the methods, conditions and establishments of the current paradigm, and instead you're judging an RBE as though it is identical to the same methods, conditions and establishments that we have today.




Yup, just as I thought, you're not looking outside the current paradigm for your reference point. Ok, I need to ask you a few questions:

Why, does traffic density tend to largely follow a pattern of occurring around the same time(s) each day?

Could it be by any chance the fact that it is because people commute to work, around the same time, then back home around the same time?

Does the phrase 9-5 mean anything to you?

And finally:

Would people need to commute to work en-masse at around the same times each day in an economic system where around 95% of the jobs have been automated?

As I have already explained to you, you're looking at this wrong. If people don't have to work, they don't have a need to commute to a job that doesn't even exist.



Not necessarily. For one thing, you need AGAIN to do something that you haven't yet done, which is look OUTSIDE the current paradigm. Think about the following things. For one thing, why would people be in such a hurry? Remember, there WILL BE NO morning rush to get the kids dressed, eat their breakfast get them off to school then speed to work on time, coz guess what?

Kids will not have time constraints because time constraints are stressful.

They also won't go to "a school building" if they don't want to. They learn at their own pace in their own way.

And once again I need to remind you 95% of all jobs have been automated. Even if you DID need to travel to a hydroponics facility, or a power generation hub, or wherever it is that you have told the system you can offer assistance and supervision in the case of any systems problem (Because you would have submitted your expertise if you want to be involved with keeping the system up and running and constantly improving) Then chances are the conditions of your "work" would have included that within a certain time slot that you have allocated (coz you wouldn't want to be called if you decide to go abroad if you felt like it) whether you would want to be notified about what problem the system has that you can help fix and you can make your OWN way to the facility, OR it can be set up so transport is automatically sent for you in case of that systems problem and you go there.

Why the emphasis on a car arriving for you to be so damn quick? In an RBE, time is no longer that relentless entity continually spurning on morbid deadlines for stuff, come on, think outside the box, will you?



I'm not saying there will be ZERO need for maintenence EVER, of course, we canb't achieve perfection, however the need for maintenence will be VASTLY reduced to infantismal numbers. Why? Because things will be built to last. Something that is NOT done today.



Of course they're all designed with a certain level of obsolescence in mind, the companies that make them have to make profits you know. Ask my friend Doug Mallette, he used to WORK for the spaceshuttle programme as a systems engineer, he can tell you this.

The reason you wouldn't think so much of it is because projects like the space shuttle programme utilises multiple levels of redundancy. Thats part of the reason why things like that are so damn expensive. Coz there's THREE of everything.

I find it interesting that instead of chosing to see how our regular consumer products are built to break, forcing us consumers to keep buying more stuff, instead you choose to use the example of the one thing that's seemingly subject to the LEAST degree of obsolescence: The space shuttle. In a desperate attemp to dispute the planned obsolescence argument.

How about recognising how everything else is designed to break and/or become old and unfashionabkle as quickly as possible?



Since this was Doug's job in particular, shall I ask him to answer this for you?



That IS the idea. I never said that recycling is considered on ALL levels for ALL products. ESPECIALLY when it comes to appliances such as electronics which are among the most rapidly emergent products we have. Its far more efficient to strandardise computer components and have them easily interchangeable to facilitate physical updates, instead of what we do now, which is throw the whole damn thing into landfill becaise 1 small component is broken/worn out/obsolete.



Are you incapable of taking responsibility for your own thinking instead of projecting all the flaws onto me? I can understand it makes it easier for you to refute me and pass me off as unconvincing and full of hot air if you project certain attributes against me without considering how closed you may be.

And this really shows how much LITTLE attention you pay, coz I have never said "access abundant". Its "access abundance".



I assert access abundance in an RBE, HOWEVER FOR YOUR EXAMPLE, there esists this phenomenon known as SCARCITY. And quite debilitating scarcity at that.

A system of access would need to be figured out because we would want everyone to be provided for, right? Or did you expect me to follow along with your capitalist thinking and have the vast majority of the means for living concentrated in the hands of a small elite while the peasents are left to fight over what is left?

Yea, you have the winning formula there. Nice one.



And if you knew anything about monetary economics, you will be aware of something called "inflation" which dictates that the more money you have in circulation, the less it's worth.



Then set me straight. Prove that I am second guessing you by proving what you are implying. I find it quite interesting that the phrase "second guessing" is a statement I have used already on this forum and yet you suddenly start using it as well. I didn't know I insipred you so.



Where you went from claiming that:



To...



The first statement implies that we are stupid by nature. And the second statement implies that we are stupid coz we have no nature. Not only are you redefining your terms, you are back-peddling.



Please stop with the projections. I see right through them.

I also find it interesting that you made two quotes by me at the bottom, but no response from yourself.



The documentary I linked was Zeitgeist: Moving Formward, NOT Zeitgeist: The Movie.



The consumer doesn't demand to be screwed out of money.



Not necessarily. Numerous companies do some real cruel and terrib;le things, and those crimes are revealed, and yet, the sheeple STILL shop there. Also, if it has a good lobbyist base, it can lobby for legal protection.



I assume you're referring to Bayer and the Factor 8 scandal.



So we're agreeing on something I corrected you on?



You understood my point, because you have elaborated on it with your respoinse here. And you're right. However NOTHING is quality, because buying once does not create a viable unit sale window.



Exactly. Its cyclical. All to perpetuate the need to keep currency moving.



Refer to the other thread I've created on here called "Cancerf has been cured. But will the economy allow it?" Where I have extensively explained how a cure for cancer is devastating to the anti-economy we live in right now.



The point of Z:MF is to simply present information. That is it. Where you go with it after you have it is up to you. That is why the entire reason why TZM is a leaderless movement. Because we are all encouraged to guide our OWN routes of learning and personal growth. For all of us to be our OWN leaders.

As such, Z:MF does not qualify as propaganda of any form.



And your reasons for saying this is? Peter has never claimed to be the Hercules of the narration world. However he does what he can to present the information in as much of an entertaining and informative manner as possible. The mistake you're making here is you're getting too caught up with the people. You need to only be concerned with the DATA. The second you attatch a person to the information you have instantly corrupted it.



I didn't know that we were arguing at all in the first place.



Then please, by all means, fill in the rest for us.



Watch thje following 40 minute flash animation video called "Money as Debt". It is NOT made -by anyone either with, or formally with TZM so you are guaranteed an unbiased view. This video takes you through the history of currency.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU[/youtube]



What makes you think that an economic collapse is bad for the rich elite? They have enough reserves to survive comfortably whether there's a booming economy, or world war 3 going on. Besides the elites are only concerned with one thing: Short-term profits. They would rape this planet ragged if they knew it would get them some more cash.



Neither of the Zeitgeist films, mor any of TZM's material blithely labells anyone NOT involved with the movement as sheeple. However there are certain people that both you and I can equally agree are sheeple.



And who owns General Electric? The same person(s) pulling other puppet strings by any chance?



Yup. Here's also a VERY interesting article about recent developments in Iceland. And the reason why NO-ONE in the mainstream media have been talking about them.
http://2013rainbowroundtable.ning.com/p ... but-is-not


Quite possibly.



Have you seen how dire things are for the dollar now?



Such a thing cannot be allowed in a monetary system. The profits run because of UNsustainability.


Howabout instead of a competitive system, we have a collaborative system, where the benefits to people and society is valued? Yea, I like that idea better.



Howabout we just do away with the idea of the NEED for “enemies”? I like that idea better as well.



That is no reason to hold nations back.



So with that in mind, why not just let them get on with it and not rape them of what little they have?



Geopolitics is NOT a natural law. Pretending it is is negligence.



Is that a reason to take advantage? No. Is that a reason to ignore the suffering caused by our greed which comes at the 3rd world’s expense?



The root causes become apparent and self-evident when you take money out of the equation and consider how we can technologically provide for humanity, no borders, no segregation, no bias, no opinion, no equivocations.



Maybe you should read “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” By John Perkins. It explicitly describes how nations are subverted by the whims and addictions of wealthy nations.



Scarcity is partly to blame, however you cannot blame certain individuals. They are symptoms of this current system just like the rest of us.



When I refer to “them” I’m referring to the nation as a whole, not the collective character of it’s people. Coz there’s no such thing.



How about we do away with the need for military forces in their capacity as trained killing machines? I like that idea better.



I never said the western world is to blame for the woes of the east and 3rd. As I said, when you take money out of the equation, and consider how we can technically deal with the technical problems at hand while technologically providing for humanity, things become VERY simple VERY quickly.



I’ll look forward to it.



Then you haven’t gone about technically solving problems the correct way.



Source please?



Your statements only hold true in a world which operates under total anarchy.



We haven’t had monetary systems forever. Therefore we haven’t had the principle of “advertising” forever.



That has nothing to do with “sales”, or “advertising”. It is contingent upon the whims of people who have used force or coercion to satisfy the results of their whims.


We have no nature in this context. Monetary systems and such are extremely new to our development.



Considering that all systems of “economics” use the monetary system to some degree, capitalism is one shade of a 7 s**t trumpet, so to speak.



Exactly.



Such as?



You are aware that "Zeitgeist" was the name of the first film Peter Joseph did before he conceived of The Zeitgeist Movement.

I keep getting the impression that I'm talking about Z:MF and you're talking about Zeitgeist.

However if we're talking about Zeitgeist and success, the first film became one of the most viewed videos in internet history within MONTHS of being uploaded. It also went on to win awards at the artivist film festival, who actually personally contacted Peter Joseph and ASKED him to show the film in the festival (Normally, you have to apply to be included in the festival). They also automatically without even viewing his next film invited Peter Joseph the next year to show Addendum. Both Films have received high praise and multiple awards from the festival. Peter also intended to have Z:MF finished in time for last year's festival, however he didn't complete it until january this year.

The "critics" that you refer to will obviously have a negative view of the documentary series as you can tell for yourself if you take a look at establishment reviews of it.



When watching a documentary I pay attention to the INFORMATION. The delivery is for show, and hense has no real bearing on the validity, or fallacy of said information.



The future is uncertain for the clean energy methods we have. Which is why we need to support them.



In part. And we ARE referring to Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, right?



We are always in a state of transition.



Then where are they, and where are their proposals? Do I see anyone jumping around for attention on the matter...... No, I don't.



The profit motive IS a step towards sustainable living. Its just one of the evolutionary cul-de-sacs that we have fallen into for a long time.



Then I challenge you to prove to me that the profit motive benefits the lives of everyone on the planet.



No, the wall street sector OWN the corporate sector. There's a difference.



Jacque Fresco is neither a prophet or a dictator. Things will go however they will go. However placing a number of similarity on what something will look like economically at a certain point in the future is akin to claiming you have prophetic powers. The real power lies in the hands of the masses.



We have more than "paper" ideas.



You completely misunderstand the nature of the value system shift. an RBE is not a school of anarchy.



Exactly. There's no way of telling because people will make their own decisions depending on a FAR greater array of options that are available to us today.



Why stick with LA when you can visit equatorial regions?



Its debateable whether those activities aren't anything more than producats of culture.



There's nothing to suggest that would be a problem. A variable we have a handle on is called "dynamic equilubrium".



And what are "wants" generated by?



In a way, you're right. The concept of the self is everything, and nothing all at once. Its part of symbiosis.



Nope. My point is that we are born curious. And we are TAUGHT to accept that things are "the way it is".



Do you not agree that the common consensus of "human nature" and "the human condition" are merely inherited without examination from others who didn't examine it, who got that from others before them who didn't examine it either?



Source please?



I agree.



Human limitations are merely human limitations. If what you just said was true, it would be in our nature not to be capable of flight.



Your definition does not fit. If what you have just stated defines our nature, then EVERYTHING is included in our nature. Because due to our maleability, anything can limit, or free us. And defining any "nature" upon a continually and unpredictably transient quagmire of variables is simply intellectual impossibility.



And RBE doesn't claim to "fix" anything. It just is. And to try and devalue the validity of an RBE because you can name a set of variables that NOTHING can control., doesn't make an RBE any less of a viable option for humanity. An RBE can't control the weather either. Does that mean its futile to even push for an RBE because it can't control the weather?



I never said any purity is needed. The purity or dirtied-up nature of the arguments are your call.



Your leaps of logic are becoming erratic and irrational now. You don't have to be religious to debunk something.



I'm convinced that "the human condition" doesn't even exist. As I have explained. Meaning that I'm not painting it out to be ANYTHING.



Because it has never been done before. Thus you cannot apply any previous predictions of events upon the ytransition to it.



I have already explained that an RBE doesn't "do" anything, because it is simply an intelligently designed economic model. What "does" something is the result of the value system shift.



Neither do I. Because it is not an "idealistic" principle or goal. As I have explained at length, its not a utopia. t will be, whatever it will become.



First you have to "pitch" a supposition which proves "human nature" concretely. Then you have to prove that it ties intimitely in with the functionming of an economic system like an RBE.



I stated as such to affirm the non-aggression principle as a core faculty of the value system we advocate. And as such the reason why everyone is free to either live with us if they want to, or not live with us if they don't.



We've never claimed to cater for absolutely everyone's tastes.



No-one said it would. We aren't under the illusion that people are clones of each other and hense all have the same needs and wants. However what we do recognise is the responsibility to provide for the core human needs such as food, water etc. Those are empirical and universal.



Because the "human nature" fallacy is used so much by people without even thinking about what it means to try and assert how the attaining of an RBE will either not work, or not be possible whatsoever.



I never said that it would. In fact, living in an RBE would encourage people to be even more sociable. Not only because they don't have to worry about travel expenses, but also because "the world is their oyster" so to speak. I know I would travel for the vast majority of my life if I lived in an RBE. I would go and interact with the differing cultures of the world and learn of their customs. I would drink of the richness of our planetary diversity.



I wouldn't even say that we're debating. I prefer discussion. At least then its about the exchange of information and not about an infantile game of winning or losing.



I would agree. Language as we know so well is such a minefield of subjectivity.



I was 100% with you until you used the word "perfect". Perfection is impossible to achieve in an emergent universe. We have to accept the emergence and not place our hopes on any unattainable final frontiers.



Not in an RBE.



Makes? in an RBE, collaboration is the functional orientation. There are no "makes" because there are no competing companies, let alone anyone pursuing the egoism of placing their "mark" on a product to say "i did that". So what? You made a toaster.



Of course. And the richness of individualism is what gives flavour to all our lives.

The RBE depends on magic in order to function. This thread has divided those who believe in magic from those who don't.

Really? What kind of magic? And how does the magic work? You also need to take into consideration this thread has become YET ANOTHER debate attempt at the hands of those who are perpetually asking questions about an RBE, because I posted here (Would you believe it, I didn't create this thread) and certain people took the opportunity to pounce on me.

I have tried to get the discussion on this thread BACK to the topic of the unabomber, as per the OP, but to no avail, people don't wanna talk about that anymore. They wanna grill me about an RBE.

Taking into consideration you are one of the most beligerent individuals on here making one of the most concerted efforts to dispute an RBE as opposed to actually developing an objective understanding of it, I would be thrilled to find out what "magic" it is you speak of. Is is Paul Daniels magic or David Copperfield Magic?