What is The Free World Charter?

Denerick · 07-03-2011 2:48am

southsiderosie wrote: »

A world where humans are completely replaced by machines sounds terrible for both humanity and progress. Already our heavy use of technology is retarding both how we process information and how we connect to each other as human beings; add society-wide idleness on top of that and you have a recipe for disaster. Work, whether in the home, in the market, or in service to the nation, gives people a sense of meaning and identity. Is it really possible to have a society where human beings contribute nothing to it? Can that kind of world really be called a society?

Aside from the lack of economic feasibility in the charter, and the general utopian nature of the document, I find its vision of the future to be utterly terrifying.

Nah, not really, its just basically Star Trek without the Klingons (Presumably any intelligent life out there would be pacifists and utopians)

AmalgamAudio · 07-03-2011 11:28am

Love nor Money wrote: »

Look, it's all very nice to dream of this utopian ideal. However the id will never be defeated. That's why none of this can work.

If you have read any of Jacque Fresco's books, went to his lectures or watched any of his many videos on youtube, you'd know that its not a utopia he or anyone in TVP is promoting. Before we open our mouth we should really think about what we are saying, are we just spouting rhetoric or are we just saying words our ego and doctrine have imprinted on our minds.

Being a defeatist and saying something cannot work on the principles you have laid down is laughable, you should really try and open your mind to different ideas.

AmalgamAudio · 07-03-2011 12:39pm

SupaNova wrote: »

What does it say about the Zeitgeist Movement if they don't know about this? It would at least say they are poorly researched.

If they do know about it. Why not mention it? Maybe because its been built using money and labor, with the intention of making profit, and looking to better human life in the process. See Capitalism isn't all trampling on top of each other in the name of profit.

Capitalism is all trampling on top of each other. Capitalism has failed on a Worlwide scale anyone who can see that is deluded...

SupaNova · 07-03-2011 1:33pm

Capitalism is all trampling on top of each other. Capitalism has failed on a Worlwide scale anyone who can see that is deluded..

Please give me an example of your claim that capitalism is trampling all over each other.

State Capitalism is failing due to bad government. A lot of people hope that we can just elect a better government and things will be better. Some people think removing government intervention in an economy will make things better. Some crazy people think we can abandon money and capitalism, build machines that do everything for us and provide us with everything all whilst not starving to death.

Denerick · 07-03-2011 1:49pm

AmalgamAudio wrote: »

Capitalism is all trampling on top of each other. Capitalism has failed on a Worlwide scale anyone who can see that is deluded...

Since China embraced the free market, hundreds of millions of Chinese people have been lifted out of extreme poverty. Africa's best option is to also embrace the free market, and since the advent of Chinese investment in the continent tens of millions of people are going from abject poverty to relative affluence. History is a testament to the power of capitalism to raise living standards and to improve quality of life. Your shiny eyed utopianism and crypto Marxism belongs in Star Trek or something.

Permabear · 07-03-2011 2:03pm

This post has been deleted.

silkfield · 07-03-2011 2:19pm

johngalway wrote: »

One of the reasons Communism will never work, is the same reason this will never work.

People.

Quite simply they're a flawed and greedy species.

Babies are not born greedy and individualistic. Hungry maybe, but not greedy. They learn this, because we teach them.

You and I learned individualism from the system we were born into, and probably had a good understanding of it long before our ABCs even.

To fully appreciate the concepts of The Free World Charter / The Venus Project, you have to not only think about a world without money, but also a world without thinking the way you think now.

For example, nothing would really be 'free', because the concept of 'free' is meaningless without money. Stuff would just be 'available'. People would not be greedy, because the concept of greed is meaningless without scarcity. If someone wants to eat 15 pizzas a day, that's fine. It's stupid maybe, but not greedy. If you want 100 iPads, fine - if they're available, but they're just going to clutter up your gaff! You can't sell them!

Let me quickly qualify that by saying that this is all assuming that people are educated in the new system.

It is, I admit, very likely that the transition to such a new paradigm would be a bumpy one and not without its problems, but every major change has its stresses. Like moving house; you want to just be in the new house, the act of moving itself can be a nightmare!

I say again, people should be very slow to dismiss these concepts. They just make sense, and our current system doesn't. These aren't my ideas, so there's no ego trip here. But you are going to be hearing about this stuff again and again from all angles. It would be so much better to adopt these concepts early rather than leaving the fate of our species in the hands of a self-serving group of "ruling classes".

Whatever reservations you may have, I would ask you to compare them to a system that allows needless starvation, suffering, subordination, wars, pollution and death.

Soldie · 07-03-2011 2:31pm

silkfield wrote: »

For example, nothing would really be 'free', because the concept of 'free' is meaningless without money. Stuff would just be 'available'. People would not be greedy, because the concept of greed is meaningless without scarcity. If someone wants to eat 15 pizzas a day, that's fine. It's stupid maybe, but not greedy. If you want 100 iPads, fine - if they're available, but they're just going to clutter up your gaff! You can't sell them!

This is great; where do I sign up?

P.S. I don't have to do anything, do I?

SupaNova · 07-03-2011 2:32pm

This is why Socialism failed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7zzH8ruLDc

The Zeitgeist Movement/Venus Project make little reference to this economic calculation problem. They just say that we would feed into a central computer what we want and then we would get that object. That Computer would have to solve the economic calculation problem. Computers have to be programmed by a human. No human has solved this problem.

Permabear · 07-03-2011 2:34pm

This post has been deleted.

Denerick · 07-03-2011 2:41pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You know, I've always wanted my own private island off the west coast of Ireland. How many islands are there? What about the people who live there? Problem sorted. I want it, I can have it. This utopia sounds fantastic.

Valmont · 07-03-2011 2:46pm

silkfield wrote: »

If you want 100 iPads, fine - if they're available, but they're just going to clutter up your gaff

Possibly the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time.

silkfield wrote: »

Let me quickly qualify that by saying that this is all assuming that people are educated in the new system.

Ah there we go, we all have to bow down and lie prostrate before our new masters so we can become re-educated. Where have I heard such nonsense before?

silkfield wrote: »

It is, I admit, very likely that the transition to such a new paradigm would be a bumpy one and not without its problems.

Yeah, all of those Ipads lying on your bed would definitely make it bumpy.

This Zeitgeist stuff is very silly. Although I suppose I think that because I'm just not open-minded enough or too indoctrinated in my sense of individuality which has been foisted upon me by our current capitalistic overlords. Please.

Valmont · 07-03-2011 2:51pm

AmalgamAudio wrote: »

you should really try and open your mind to different ideas.

*Closes eyes, opens mouth, and waits for pineapple pizza to enter*

Soldie · 07-03-2011 2:53pm

Will the free iPads have free apps for ordering the free pizza?

southsiderosie · 07-03-2011 3:27pm

silkfield wrote: »

To fully appreciate the concepts of The Free World Charter / The Venus Project, you have to not only think about a world without money, but also a world without thinking the way you think now.

For example, nothing would really be 'free', because the concept of 'free' is meaningless without money. Stuff would just be 'available'. People would not be greedy, because the concept of greed is meaningless without scarcity. If someone wants to eat 15 pizzas a day, that's fine. It's stupid maybe, but not greedy. If you want 100 iPads, fine - if they're available, but they're just going to clutter up your gaff! You can't sell them!

That is not true. Even in societies that do not have money as a means of exchange, 'gifts' were not 'free'; Mauss has written about this extensively. The non-monetary exchange of goods usually involves another kind of payment: bartering for similar goods, enhancement of social ties, or creation of norms of obligation.

I also do not understand why you think scarcity would not be an issue? This is another problem with that ridiculous charter: it calls for people to protect environmental resources, yet claims that there will be a world without scarcity. There seems to be an inherent contradiction there. I also do not understand why you seem to think that greed is not an innate part of human nature; every religion I can think of moralizes about the need to avoid being greedy and selfish, suggesting that it is simply part of the human condition.

Finally what, if any, is the role of the state in this world o'plenty? Who provides security?

silkfield · 07-03-2011 3:41pm

southsiderosie wrote: »

That is not true. Even in societies that do not have money as a means of exchange, 'gifts' were not 'free'; Mauss has written about this extensively. The non-monetary exchange of goods usually involves another kind of payment: bartering for similar goods, enhancement of social ties, or creation of norms of obligation.

I also do not understand why you think scarcity would not be an issue? This is another problem with that ridiculous charter: it calls for people to protect environmental resources, yet claims that there will be a world without scarcity. There seems to be an inherent contradiction there. I also do not understand why you seem to think that greed is not an innate part of human nature; every religion I can think of moralizes about the need to avoid being greedy and selfish, suggesting that it is simply part of the human condition.

Finally what, if any, is the role of the state in this world o'plenty? Who provides security?

You raise many questions here that I have either already answered, or are covered in the "Criticism" page on the website. If you don't find the answer there, I would suggest you try The Venus Projects' FAQ page.

SupaNova · 07-03-2011 3:50pm

The Zeitgeist Movement/Venus Project make little reference to this economic calculation problem. They just say that we would feed into a central computer what we want and then we would get that object. That Computer would have to solve the economic calculation problem. Computers have to be programmed by a human. No human has solved this problem.

There is nothing on this in your links?

southsiderosie · 07-03-2011 4:05pm

silkfield wrote: »

You raise many questions here that I have either already answered, or are covered in the "Criticism" page on the website. If you don't find the answer there, I would suggest you try The Venus Projects' FAQ page.

The FAQ are even more bizarre than the charter. And my point was about greed, which is not the same thing as competition.

Ultimately, your ability to buy even a smidgen of what you are selling depends on your view of the nature of man. If you believe that man is inherently sinful and bad, then your vision of future society is fanciful. If you believe that man is solely a product of his environment, well, good luck. Personally, I am with Hobbes on this one.

c_man · 07-03-2011 5:08pm

This is all very much like the online novel Manna (probably better just to skim the wiki).

It describes a similar world (i.e. iPads for everyone

) but is based upon some crucial technological advancements like nanotech, AI etc.

WeeBushy · 07-03-2011 6:09pm

Soldie wrote: »

Will the free iPads have free apps for ordering the free pizza?

No, I wanted a pizza company so its mine now. And I'm not going to give you any unless I get something in return. Oh wait...

silkfield · 07-03-2011 6:40pm

Thanks to all respondents again. I'm sorry but I can't go on defending something over and over or outlining every single detail of the plan. I do have other commitments. If you want to know more then maybe you should watch the video 'Zeitgeist Addendum'. I think that's the best one.

It's not my plan. It's nobody's and it's everybody's plan. If you think you can improve on it or come up with a better plan, then please go right ahead and do so.

If you like it and agree with it then I would really like it if you signed the Charter.

If you think it's just utter nonsense, then please just ignore it. We're not harming anyone here, and you're only annoying yourself by bashing it needlessly.

WeeBushy · 07-03-2011 7:27pm

silkfield wrote: »

Thanks to all respondents again. I'm sorry but I can't go on defending something over and over or outlining every single detail of the plan. I do have other commitments. If you want to know more then maybe you should watch the video 'Zeitgeist Addendum'. I think that's the best one.

It's not my plan. It's nobody's and it's everybody's plan. If you think you can improve on it or come up with a better plan, then please go right ahead and do so.

If you like it and agree with it then I would really like it if you signed the Charter.

If you think it's just utter nonsense, then please just ignore it. We're not harming anyone here, and you're only annoying yourself by bashing it needlessly.

I think you'll see that we've actually been getting quite some enjoyment out of it, not annoying ourselves

I don't understand why you would start a thread about something that is clearly controversial and then not want to defend it

Denerick · 08-03-2011 12:30am

TO be honest Silkfield, I'm not annoyed in the slightest. I derive great pleasure by bashing stupid or dangerous ideas.

silkfield · 08-03-2011 1:06pm

@Denerick, @takun, @WeeBushy, @Einhard, @southsiderosie, @Johngalway, @SupaNova, @sink, @Permabear, @Love nor Money, @Valmont.

A motley crew. Instead of me repeating myself, referring you to links or debating ideologies, I've got a much better idea.

As far as I'm concerned, what I'm proposing is a positive solution, which suffers only one major disadvantage: It can't be tested or be shown to work first; it can only be tried for real. So, leaps of faith are required, yes.

But let's just put aside my proposal for a moment and have a look at what you are all vehemently defending...

1. A system that allows approx 30 million people to die every year due to malnutrition, when we KNOW we have the technology to stop that from happening. How is that not murder by negligence?

2. A system that allows approx 2 million people to die each year from AIDS (for example), when we KNOW we can produce the medicines and the education to stop that from happening. How is that not murder by negligence?

3. A system where the pursuit of profit is the highest priority, regardless of the effect that has on our environment and our health. Useless, cheap products are manufactured over and over again, poisoning the planet and wasting limited resources, because they are profitable.

4. A system where a tiny ruling elite control the game for everyone, trapping people in debt slavery, and who have the power to incarcerate you if you don't comply. Unless you are a member of this elite, you are born an underling.

5. A system where people born in disadvantaged areas have no hope of ever reaching their full potential. (Spare me the movie anecdotes!)

.... I could go on and on.

I would like each of you to now come on and explain these five wonders of the poisonous system you so loyally defend.

I would also like each to explain why you would never even ATTEMPT to replace this system with a better one.

johngalway · 08-03-2011 1:48pm

If you want to believe in some Sci Fi pie in the sky notion of world perfection, then go ahead. Personally I won't be wasting my time debating with people who believe in that type of nonsense as there quite simply will never be a meeting of minds. I've had my say on this thread and am quite content to leave it so. To contribute further is just a waste of my time. I'm a lot more concerned with the problems of this country than other countries, a lot of whom seem more content shooting, shelling, raping, starving, and bludgeoning each other to death. When they eventually decide they would like to help themselves, rather than suckle of the tit of those with some intelligence, then maybe I'll be back

People are the problem, you just keep on ignoring that quaint little fact.

Wildlife Actor · 08-03-2011 2:18pm

OK. My last post on this:

There are ways to improve the world that work and there are ways to improve the world that don't work.

The ways that work are not as sexy as the ways that don't work. They are small steps, sometimes, I'll admit, offset by disimprovements elsewhere.

The ways that don't work generally involve coercion of the masses. If they could work, they would be great. But they don't.

The ways that don't work look to the ends as justifying the means. The means are generally vague in prospect and horrific in restrospect.

You should not assume that those who are sceptical about grand schemes don't want to improve the world, or could not be bothered. It would be great if nobody starved, if nobody died from diseases, if everybody had equal opportunities. But that is not achieved by relying on the good nature of the world or by mass coercion.

The end

southsiderosie · 08-03-2011 2:37pm

silkfield wrote: »

@Denerick, @takun, @WeeBushy, @Einhard, @southsiderosie, @Johngalway, @SupaNova, @sink, @Permabear, @Love nor Money, @Valmont.

A motley crew. Instead of me repeating myself, referring you to links or debating ideologies, I've got a much better idea.

Really? Because at this point, some data would be good.

silkfield wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, what I'm proposing is a positive solution, which suffers only one major disadvantage: It can't be tested or be shown to work first; it can only be tried for real. So, leaps of faith are required, yes.

Please provide one example where man's desire to blow up the current socioeconomic system to impose something new and exciting (rather than make a gradual shift to something that is actually rooted in a society's norms and culture) has not ended in disaster.

silkfield wrote: »

But let's just put aside my proposal for a moment and have a look at what you are all vehemently defending...

1. A system that allows approx 30 million people to die every year due to malnutrition, when we KNOW we have the technology to stop that from happening. How is that not murder by negligence?

As Amaryta Sen noted, famines generally do not occur in democracies.

silkfield wrote: »

2. A system that allows approx 2 million people to die each year from AIDS (for example), when we KNOW we can produce the medicines and the education to stop that from happening. How is that not murder by negligence?

Education is a big part of it, but education has to overcome culture. When you have the president of a country with one of the highest HIV rates in the world saying he "took a shower" after having unprotected sex to protect himself from AIDS, do you really think that is a country that is going to lower its HIV rates anytime soon? There is huge variance in HIV/AIDS rates, and a lot of this comes down to education - again a political rather than an economic phenomenon. This is particularly true in the case of HIV/AIDS because there is so much money available to address this disease - far more so than chronic illnesses that affect a much larger population, such as diabetes.

The drugs are another issue. I admire those countries, most notably Brazil and India, that stood up the the pharmaceutical companies and really pushed for cheap, easily deliverable drugs. But, again, this is a political question, not an economic one.

silkfield wrote: »

3. A system where the pursuit of profit is the highest priority, regardless of the effect that has on our environment and our health. Useless, cheap products are manufactured over and over again, poisoning the planet and wasting limited resources, because they are profitable.

And this is where regulation comes in. Forty years ago nobody would have touched the water in Boston's Charles River, and today there are open river swimming competitions there. I'd also add that some of the worse cases of environmental poisoning happen in places that are not capitalist and not democratic (Soviet Russia, for example).

silkfield wrote: »

4. A system where a tiny ruling elite control the game for everyone, trapping people in debt slavery, and who have the power to incarcerate you if you don't comply. Unless you are a member of this elite, you are born an underling.

"Tiny ruling elites" don't put guns to people's heads and make them take out huge mortgages.

silkfield wrote: »

5. A system where people born in disadvantaged areas have no hope of ever reaching their full potential. (Spare me the movie anecdotes!)

Fine, have some data: The Brookings Institute notes significant differences in national outcomes for social mobility. Yet all the countries includes are market economies. Notably, countries that are liberal market economies do worse in regards to social mobility than those that are coordinated market economies (the Nordic countries, Germany). Not all forms of capitalism are the same.

silkfield wrote: »

.... I could go on and on.

Yes, we know. But what you are proposing still doesn't make any sense, not only because you are conflating the effects of economic versus political systems, but because you have yet to address questions of historically consistent human behavior (greed, lust for power, etc) and social context.

silkfield wrote: »

I would like each of you to now come on and explain these five wonders of the poisonous system you so loyally defend.

I would also like each to explain why you would never even ATTEMPT to replace this system with a better one.

It's funny that these are the users that you lump together as stalwart defenders of capitalism. Some are, some aren't. The only unifying thread between us is that we seem to think the ideas you propose are ridiculous for a variety of reasons, most of which you have refused to engage directly. So instead of pushing everyone else to defend their positions on a threat that YOU started, how about you either 1) present your ideas clearly without sending everyone back to slog through twenty pages of text on some random websites, 2) take peoples' opinions at face value and engage with them, and/or 3) acknowledge that people fundamentally disagree with you and let it go?

SupaNova · 08-03-2011 2:46pm

I will converse with him as i believe its dangerous for people to have these misconceptions that lead them to believe in fantasy sci-fi stories.

1. A system that allows approx 30 million people to die every year due to malnutrition, when we KNOW we have the technology to stop that from happening. How is that not murder by negligence?

2. A system that allows approx 2 million people to die each year from AIDS (for example), when we KNOW we can produce the medicines and the education to stop that from happening. How is that not murder by negligence?

3. A system where the pursuit of profit is the highest priority, regardless of the effect that has on our environment and our health. Useless, cheap products are manufactured over and over again, poisoning the planet and wasting limited resources, because they are profitable.

4. A system where a tiny ruling elite control the game for everyone, trapping people in debt slavery, and who have the power to incarcerate you if you don't comply. Unless you are a member of this elite, you are born an underling.

5. A system where people born in disadvantaged areas have no hope of ever reaching their full potential. (Spare me the movie anecdotes!)

1. People are not dying because of the system. Research why people are dying in Africa. Check the history of the country.

2. The system is not the reason people die of AIDS. There is a ton of stuff on AIDS and why it is a problem. Do some research if you like.

3. Useless cheap goods are produced because there is a market for them. If people didn't buy them they wouldn't exist.

4. Yes we are ruled by a small group of people with a lot of power. But that has nothing to do with free market capitalism.

5. Its unfortunate that people are born in Africa and poverty stricken countries i agree. Its also unfortunate i wasn't born into a royal family and living a life of luxury. That has nothing to do with free market capitalism.

Side note: For people that really care about poor people in other countries, quit complaining every time jobs are outsourced there.

20Cent · 08-03-2011 2:50pm

The speed of progress in technology is moving at a very fast rate and it is getting faster all the time. A computer with abilities many times greater than the human brain is predicted within the next decade. What such a machine could design, invent fix is beyond what we know now. A huge change in how we think about society is not so unbelievable.

SupaNova · 08-03-2011 2:54pm

What such a machine could design, invent fix is beyond what we know now. A huge change in how we think about society is not so unbelievable.

Computers are programmed by humans. Increased processing power doesn't equal computers being more intelligent than humans.

What is The Free World Charter?

Comments