Jump to content

Zeitgeist


Rosbjerg

Recommended Posts

Has any of you seen these documentaries? They are at

now (aka "Moving Forward").

 

For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about.. The Zeitgeist Movement is the activist arm of the "Venus Project" - a suggestion for a society without money, politics and well basically what we know today - rather a society governed, ruled and applied with science and equality as the prime motivation. It's not communism (even though it could sound like that).

 

I've been watching the movement (a chapter has even opened in Copenhagen as is growing quite rapidly) and the documentaries and I'm very intrigued by the whole idea of a society which is governed by logic and science (saying that consumption should always be in balance with availability and renewability, rather than profit being the prime motivator). It's seems utopian, but at the same time quite feasible.

 

Thoughts?

Fortune favors the bald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only problem with this is that you'd need to temper science with ethics.

 

They claim that the overall goal is to promote well being - like abolishing poverty, by removing the monetary system.. The argument goes that the main reason for crime, wars etc is due to money and competition over resources, while sharing resources based on equal needs would remove the unequal distribution of resources.. I mean, 1% of the population has 40% of the wealth.. which seems to me that resources are definitely not being distributed equally or fairly.

 

Isn't that the crazy conspiracy theory stuff?

 

only one aspect (concerning 9/11) but I don't really care for that to be honest.. But I'm more interesting in the Venus project, it's just mainly being promoted through the Zeitgeist.

Fortune favors the bald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that humans being what they are, wouldn't be able to withstand the "equal" thing due to our greedy natures.

 

And even then, By rights the human race is pretty overpopulated on the planet, who's to say that the "logical" thing to do wouldn't be to find a way to eliminate 30% of the population to more easily free up resources?

Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition!

 

Kevin Butler will awesome your face off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that humans being what they are, wouldn't be able to withstand the "equal" thing due to our greedy natures.

 

And even then, By rights the human race is pretty overpopulated on the planet, who's to say that the "logical" thing to do wouldn't be to find a way to eliminate 30% of the population to more easily free up resources?

 

Are we greedy by nature? I know that I do not crave my brothers wealth or even desire to take it from him.. even if it had no repercussions.. society today is indeed build on the foundation of accelerating consumption, but I wonder if our "nature" is not simply a predisposition to conditioning - and our current greed is therefore simply a by-product of our current culture.

 

If you were cold enough, then yes - but as it stands there are resources enough, if we utilize the resources strategically, intelligently and responsibly.. Our current method of consumption is without a doubt unsustainable, but I think proper management and utility of technology could make resources stretch far beyond how they are used today.. look at the landfills and think if we simply started the whole designing process of products with the overall concept being that they have to last for as long as possible, be easily repaired and be re-used in other applications once they fail to achieve what they were initially made for - then resources become renewable and reusable instead of the current system of cheap mass production.

 

In other words - the overall paradigm should be to always maximize efficiency and reduce waste rather than to maximize profit.

Fortune favors the bald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we greedy by nature? I know that I do not crave my brothers wealth or even desire to take it from him.. even if it had no repercussions.. society today is indeed build on the foundation of accelerating consumption, but I wonder if our "nature" is not simply a predisposition to conditioning - and our current greed is therefore simply a by-product of our current culture.

 

If you were cold enough, then yes - but as it stands there are resources enough, if we utilize the resources strategically, intelligently and responsibly.. Our current method of consumption is without a doubt unsustainable, but I think proper management and utility of technology could make resources stretch far beyond how they are used today.. look at the landfills and think if we simply started the whole designing process of products with the overall concept being that they have to last for as long as possible, be easily repaired and be re-used in other applications once they fail to achieve what they were initially made for - then resources become renewable and reusable instead of the current system of cheap mass production.

 

In other words - the overall paradigm should be to always maximize efficiency and reduce waste rather than to maximize profit.

I am of the firm opinion (so far that I have made a thesis of it) that every emotion or feeling has an evolutionary purpose in service to survival. If we are greedy it's because we have come to associate power, money and status with stability. Nature in its pure form could be most aptly described as temperament only, since every behavior is a reaction to a factor.

Fact of the matter is that you can rationally argue for anything, the abolishment of currency it's nothing new. Just look at Hume's theories on the state of nature and the origin of property. Is a old debate which has resurfaced once with the rise of anarchism, the big question is how much value does this notion really has?

I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"*

 

*If you can't tell, it's you. ;)

village_idiot.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see it partially as entertainment.

 

The stuff about the monetary system is spot on, we're totally f***ed because of it, and while folk speak of greed, why would someone be greedy in a world where they could have everything they need.

 

Basically, I agree, but I find it Utopic, its got interesting idea's, but I don't see us, as in humans, living in such a world. We'll destroy ourselves first, this is exactly what I expect to happen, I don't have alot of faith in humanity, I'd give the venus project etc... Credit for trying, I don't much mind if millions die in the process of attempting to change the world, I respect the fact that people will attempt change, afterall... This place is hell, and money does cause more problems than it solves.

I came up with Crate 3.0 technology. 

Crate 4.0 - we shall just have to wait and see.

Down and out on the Solomani Rim
Now the Spinward Marches don't look so GRIM!


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To each according to his need, from each according to his ability. I guess people never learn.

 

I guess so - saying that this is Marxism is a clear indication that you haven't understood the idea.

Fortune favors the bald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't that the crazy conspiracy theory stuff?

 

Basically. Unless they've totally overhauled the 'documentary' then, yes, it's a few facts, often exaggerated, that were mixed with a lot of fiction, conjecture, and editing - something that resulted in nothing more and nothing less than a perfect example of how conspiracy theories become popular and 'respectable.'

 

:ermm:

"Geez. It's like we lost some sort of bet and ended up saddled with a bunch of terrible new posters on this forum."

-Hurlshot

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are right about alot of things, though. Like how our economy relies on constant, ever-increasing growth. Which is impossible.

DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself.

 

Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture.

 

"I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't that the crazy conspiracy theory stuff?

 

Basically. Unless they've totally overhauled the 'documentary' then, yes, it's a few facts, often exaggerated, that were mixed with a lot of fiction, conjecture, and editing - something that resulted in nothing more and nothing less than a perfect example of how conspiracy theories become popular and 'respectable.'

 

:blink:

 

Yeah, but only the first doc, but it's only the points about 9/11 - which they are convinced that the government allowed to happen. Luckily they've moved away from that all together and all the later documentaries are not about religion or conspiracy, but about money, our current system and how it just doesn't work properly. I really like however that they at least present an alternative, instead of just complain.

Fortune favors the bald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to the American audiance, sure.. but it seems, at least in the circles that I frequent, that the prevailing opinion is pretty much that the administration of the time allowed, if not outright approved, the attack.. I think it's a pretty cynical disposition and therefore try to avoid the topic now.

Fortune favors the bald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very intrigued by the whole idea of a society which is governed by logic and science
Yeah, me too. I'd say not too feasible until we appoint Skynet as Supreme Ruler, though. Or, more eloquently:

 

Abolish Human Nature!!!

 

 

Seriously though, it's worth noting that good ol' Marxism was also advertised as "scientific", much to the damage of actual science. Say what you will, but there are similarities.

 

Also, one of the biggest hurdles this sort of thing needs to overcome is transition and implementation. The Paris commune, the Russian Revolution, the Ukrainian Free Territory, the role of anarchists during the Spanish Civil War, all show that when it comes to putting similarly revolutionary principles into practice, things tend to come apart at the seams, which results in being crushed by competing forces, or a shift towards more traditional, tried-and-true, models. How do we go from what we have now to the proposed utopia?

 

The nature/nurture question on the origin of greed is interesting, but there's no questioning that progress is tied to trade - and greed, coupled with need drives trade. So while there may not be a purely evolutionary advantage to greed, I'd say there's at least a motivational one, for which you'd have to find a substitute. And on a deeper level, you'd probably have to re-wire large portions of mankind from a self-centered scale of values to something different.

 

I don't think science is advanced enough to develop a scientific theory and practice of human societal organization that's really worthy of the name. For the time being, it's just trial and error.

- When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't that the crazy conspiracy theory stuff?

 

Basically. Unless they've totally overhauled the 'documentary' then, yes, it's a few facts, often exaggerated, that were mixed with a lot of fiction, conjecture, and editing - something that resulted in nothing more and nothing less than a perfect example of how conspiracy theories become popular and 'respectable.'

 

:thumbsup:

 

Yeah, but only the first doc, but it's only the points about 9/11...

 

Not really, no. Although I will admit that I've not seen the follow-up videos the first had issues with all three of its sections. Not that I want to get into a giant debate about this, but there's enough problems in the first film alone that I'm highly skeptical of anything coming from that source and, frankly, think that there's better uses of my time than watching any more of his stuff.

 

-_-

"Geez. It's like we lost some sort of bet and ended up saddled with a bunch of terrible new posters on this forum."

-Hurlshot

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The third film was very entertaining and informative, the second one was a tad towards the conspiratorial(claiming al-qaida was invented by the CIA etc.). It doesnt seem like its the same people who worked on the third film

DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself.

 

Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture.

 

"I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To each according to his need, from each according to his ability. I guess people never learn.

 

I guess so - saying that this is Marxism is a clear indication that you haven't understood the idea.

What you described in your original post is communism, show where I'm wrong.

"Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with communism is that it is fundamentally still a political system and that it requires the workers to unite and overthrow the capitalists and that the transition period requires a government and single political party to help it along which always ends in tyranny... this movement however advocates science as the prime motivator rather than class struggle. So calling it a modified technocracy would be more appropriate (but still inaccurate), the overall idea is to let decision making be a scientific approach, where you arrive at the solution through empirical study rather than state/gut or experience.

 

While it's true that resources would be shared, much like the ideal is in communism - decision making is not done by the classless people coming together, it is done by science and science alone. Which is not the case in communism, that rather tries to be a "true" democracy.

Fortune favors the bald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Communism doesn't require a government, everyone would voluntarily do what's best for society. Decisions made based on science doesn't really conflict with communism, it's pretty much a given. The overthrow, "dictatorship of the proletariat", re-education etc are conditions leading to communism, not communism itself.

"Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Communism doesn't require a government, everyone would voluntarily do what's best for society. Decisions made based on science doesn't really conflict with communism, it's pretty much a given. The overthrow, "dictatorship of the proletariat", re-education etc are conditions leading to communism, not communism itself.

 

Unless science did something inconvenient, like assert that communism couldn't ever work. Commies tend to get awfully tetchy when that happens.

 

cambodia-killing-fields-01.jpg

"It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"."

             -Elwood Blues

 

tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...