http://www.thevenusproject.com/

drkool

Scarcity = Profit
New way of Life.known the Truth
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Wibbs

That one has been debated to death. zeitgeist the movie is so full of holes it's beyond funny. The religious "revelations" alone are both hilarious and cringeworthy in equal amounts. Indeed it is hard to find one fact of history or theology in it. For a start Horus was not born on dec 25th(neither was Jesus BTW), he was not seen as a saviour nor were there 3 wise men(the christian texts don't even give a number anyway, that tradition came later), he never died, nor was resurrected and he didn't have 12 followers. The list is long. Same goes for all the other ancient gods mentioned. You would have to be extremely gullible and ill informed to put any store by it. BTW God's son = God's sun is all very well, but only works in english, a language not even spoken back then(it doesn't work in the ancient languages either). It's mostly based on a 70's jesus conspiracy movement that no scholar would touch with a bargepole.

The second part about sept 11 has been hashed about back and forth for years and the nuts love it, but little or no evidence for the vast majority of their claims has ever held water.

The third section is equally full of bogus guff and cites as references other conspiracy sites, books and nutters.

Heres a pretty good site to take the silliness and go through it point by point.

http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/

I know someone who believes this even when faced with evidence to the contrary. Scary aint in it.

eddie.fandango

Agree with Wibbs; this comes from the "Loose Change" and Michael Moore school of filmmaking. Avoid.

Shulgin

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912

The new version (Zeitgeist: Addendum) is available in full there.
Worth a watch.

Joycey

Shulgin wrote: »

Worth a watch.

Not really

megmeg

i dont think it a good idea to dismiss the ideas on the movies just because of the flaws, you dont throw away a Diamond because of a few imperfections.

The concepts in the movies are great, I admit some of the details are debatable, but that is the same for any concept out there.

Pick out the best bits, and reject the rest.

Getting off the grid is what we all need to do, and the movies help inspire people to learn more and do it for themselves, even if they dont agree with the whole of the movies. They will change the way you look at the world, even if you dont agree with it all.

nyarlothothep

Venus project is a psy op. Remember the CIA orchestrated Jonestown?

Joycey

megmeg wrote: »

i dont think it a good idea to dismiss the ideas on the movies just because of the flaws, you dont throw away a Diamond because of a few imperfections.

The concepts in the movies are great, I admit some of the details are debatable, but that is the same for any concept out there.

Pick out the best bits, and reject the rest.

Getting off the grid is what we all need to do, and the movies help inspire people to learn more and do it for themselves, even if they dont agree with the whole of the movies. They will change the way you look at the world, even if you dont agree with it all.

If I have to automatically mistrust and double check any information it gives me to verify that its true anyway, which is indeed the case, then why dont I just spend the time I spent doublechecking, and the time I spent watching the steaming pile of sh1t in the first place, and actually use it to learn something about the world

thebouldwhacker

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Venus project is a psy op. Remember the CIA orchestrated Jonestown?

Was that like when the Irish government built Shannon Town??:p

megmeg

Joycey wrote: »

If I have to automatically mistrust and double check any information it gives me to verify that its true anyway, which is indeed the case, then why dont I just spend the time I spent doublechecking, and the time I spent watching the steaming pile of sh1t in the first place, and actually use it to learn something about the world

You should never take anything at face value, have you no thirst for knowledge?
I would never take anyones word in a film, or on the net for that matter. Its called critcal thinking.

My opinion is that the venus project is quite astonishing, unique and could very well work.

mrodub

I think it is a bit narrow minded to didmiss somthing without really giving it a chance personally when i first checked it out i though it was a bit out there but the more i looked into it the more true it rang
I would suggest that you guys check out there site with an open mind and you will see what a good idea it actually is.
Who would not want a nice world to live in we dont have that now and will never if we continue as we are so its time to start trying new ideas.

To me it seems like mass madness to repeat a system that allows so many to starve and die from war etc without looking for somthing better

megmeg

Agreed. I dont know the exact statistics, but more than half of the world is earning less then 3c a day, and they are starving.
If you start to research the way the world is run today, and look at it from a very wide angle, you will begin to see it is not all that complicated at all, it is made up nonesence and just plain wrong.
Everyone in this world can be fed, without GM foods and the like, we just have to get over the ego self a bit and see a better way of doing things.
We can all make a difference.

mrodub

I think some people are happy to live in a world were 70% of there fellow man lives in dire poverty and a child dies every second due to starvation i personally am not, and i think it is even more proof we need to change when people become so detached to the suffering of others they just dont care anymore
I honestly believe while many people say they dont care i think they do they just dont want to take the next step and change there lives to help others as the western life stlye is the reason for the state of the world and we are the ones who need to change

megmeg

Just give peace a chance....

Cannibal Ox

megmeg wrote:

I dont know the exact statistics, but more than half of the world is earning less then 3c a day, and they are starving.

Try 40% of the world living on 2$ a day, which is bad, but not as bad as 50%+ living on 3c a day...

...and that's the problem with things like this (Zeigeist etc.,). People hear something, think hey, that sounds sorta like what I think it might be like, and than believe it without any grounding in fact.

gar32

Come on now don't get hung up on the numbers its people we are talking about here. The greed of the few stopping the many living a life with basics. Food, water and a life wort living. The fact is things are going to get worse unless we start doing something about it now.

The Corinthian

gar32 wrote: »

Come on now don't get hung up on the numbers its people we are talking about here.

Sure. Let's ignore the facts in favour of what we would prefer the truth to be.

asti_mivec

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sure. Let's ignore the facts in favour of what we would prefer the truth to be.

Corinithian, I don't think that Gar was "ignoring the facts" but rather misrepresenting them.

The point I think he was trying to make was that the figures are so alarming that the exact numbers do not really matter in terms of the wider discussion about how to help improve the situation.

There are so many people here who have moaned about incorrect figures in the movie referred to at the start but arguing over the numbers is rather pointless in terms of what the issues it tries to highlight are. Some figures and quotes might not add up but do you seriously believe that all statistics published by various governments the world over are correct??

The issue is that there are too many people making too much money the world over while there are huge numbers of people who are denied basic human rights, such as freedom to make their own choices, adequate water, sanitation, access to medicine and education - two things whihch would help hugely - and it's got to stop.

Here's another statistic that I believe to be close to the truth:

There are approximately 2.2 billion children in the world and over 1 billion of those are starving.....whether all the facts in the movie are exact or not, surely this is a statistic that should make us look into why this is happening and how we can help to stop it???

The Corinthian

asti_mivec wrote: »

Some figures and quotes might not add up but do you seriously believe that all statistics published by various governments the world over are correct??

There is a difference between incorrect and invented though. The former may well deviate from what is correct, however it is both unintentional and likely to be a reasonable approximation of the truth. The latter is a fact that is pulled out of thin air without reference to what it true or not; it is simply concerned with supporting a position.

The issue is that there are too many people making too much money the world over while there are huge numbers of people who are denied basic human rights, such as freedom to make their own choices, adequate water, sanitation, access to medicine and education - two things whihch would help hugely - and it's got to stop.

That issue does not give you or anyone else any right to invent evidence to support this view. Otherwise it becomes perfectly acceptable to do the same, as long as you feel the cause is just.

There are approximately 2.2 billion children in the world and over 1 billion of those are starving.....whether all the facts in the movie are exact or not, surely this is a statistic that should make us look into why this is happening and how we can help to stop it???

But if the 'facts' behind this movie are flawed, or even fabricated, how can you trust the conclusions? You suggest that we should work against such poverty, but how? One could suggest supporting the work of the World Bank or IMF for the solution, or through aid work, or Socialism, or Fascism - solutions are like assholes; everyone has one.

Whatever the right solution is though, it's not built on bullshìt and fantasy.

asti_mivec

Corinthian, I understand the difference between incorrect and invented and i agree invented information is not helpful at all, but my point was...how can any of us tell that the "facts" that the various governments supply are correct/incorrect/invented? You certainly can't as neither can I...we are told to believe it but why should we when, especially when we look at all the other lies that our governments have gotten away with in the past.

I am unsure how to multi-quote so i can reply to each of your points individually so apologies if this response seems a little thrown together.

I understand your concerns that the makers of the affore mentioned film could be using false statistics to aid their own personal gains or agenda, but I honestly feel that the general conclusion that the film arrives at is one which should not be ignored so easily, whether we agree with how the film was made or the possible hidden agenda's behind it.

It's not a question of trusting the conclusions really as I think the main theme running through the film is the promotion of "real" education devoid of religion and allowing people to make their own choices along with helping to end extreme social divisions throughout the world by affording everybody the opportunity to have a fulfilling life free from poverty (in a very brief nutshell!) and that surely is what we all want, no?

I do agree that this may not be the film it claims to be and I am by no means totally blinkered, but I feel the same about the "facts" provided by governments the world over so that is not a reason to completely ignore the themes above. And I have more faith in the ideals promoted by the venus project than I do of the current hypocritical American government or any other world leading nations or ideals as they are all too corrupt and self serving in my opinion.

And, yes I know that just like assholes, we all have a solution; but on that point I would like to point out that I don't think it should be followed strictly but I feel it is a step in the right direction (ie. away from the current form of governance).

The Corinthian

asti_mivec wrote: »

Corinthian, I understand the difference between incorrect and invented and i agree invented information is not helpful at all, but my point was...how can any of us tell that the "facts" that the various governments supply are correct/incorrect/invented? You certainly can't as neither can I...we are told to believe it but why should we when, especially when we look at all the other lies that our governments have gotten away with in the past.

Actually most of the facts that are quoted are not government originated, even before we initiate the tin-foil-hat debate on those that are.

I understand your concerns that the makers of the affore mentioned film could be using false statistics to aid their own personal gains or agenda, but I honestly feel that the general conclusion that the film arrives at is one which should not be ignored so easily, whether we agree with how the film was made or the possible hidden agenda's behind it.

I am not concerned with the makers agendas', hidden or not. Neither am I ignoring the conclusions. I am simply pointing out that the conclusions are based upon false data. Worse than that, they are based upon invented data. As such the conclusions are dismissed on that basis, not any other.

It's not a question of trusting the conclusions really as I think the main theme running through the film is the promotion of "real" education devoid of religion and allowing people to make their own choices along with helping to end extreme social divisions throughout the world by affording everybody the opportunity to have a fulfilling life free from poverty (in a very brief nutshell!) and that surely is what we all want, no?

Surely it is, but again simply putting forward a popular end and using it as the sole reason here to justify a theory of how to achieve it is an intellectual fraud.

I do agree that this may not be the film it claims to be and I am by no means totally blinkered, but I feel the same about the "facts" provided by governments the world over so that is not a reason to completely ignore the themes above. And I have more faith in the ideals promoted by the venus project than I do of the current hypocritical American government or any other world leading nations or ideals as they are all too corrupt and self serving in my opinion.

Except that governments are not the only source of information out there - to suggest so is false. There are lots of them; some governmental, some commercial, some non-profit. It is up to the individual to asses each of them on their own merits - just as we are assessing the Venus project.

And, yes I know that just like assholes, we all have a solution; but on that point I would like to point out that I don't think it should be followed strictly but I feel it is a step in the right direction (ie. away from the current form of governance).

Your argument seems to repeatedly boil down to one of:

1. There are problems in the World;
2. the solution you've put forward is built on sand;
3. better a solution built on sand than keeping those aforementioned World problems

Wrong unfortunately. If history has taught us anything is that bad solutions have caused more suffering than the problems they sought to solve.

I'm afraid that as a result, the Venus project really amounts at best to little more than well-intentioned idiocy.

Zascar

Everyone has good points above - and although there may be lots of holes in the Zietgeist movies, its overall message stands true. As OP says: Scarcity = Profit - fact. Our world needs to change its priorities away from profit and towards making the world a better place.

This world is controlled by the wants and desires of a very small number of large multinational companies and their related government connections, all because of money. If we had a fresh approach caring less about stock prices and PLC profits, it would be a great start. I'm not a tree hugging hippy or tin foil hat wearer, but i would like to see the preference/priority in this world shift away from these company bosses and more towards the good of us normal people.

Movies like Zeitgeist help to open peoples eyes, so I say more of that...

The Corinthian

Zascar wrote: »

Everyone has good points above - and although there may be lots of holes in the Zietgeist movies, its overall message stands true. As OP says: Scarcity = Profit - fact. Our world needs to change its priorities away from profit and towards making the world a better place.

Fact: There is a correlation between cars driving slower and an increase in car accidents.

Should we outlaw cars driving below a certain speed?

Of course, if we look at the problem again we find that the third factor in this correlation is ice on the roads, which in reality is the cause for the other two.

And this is the problem with developing simplistic solutions to complex problems. People rush in, tell everyone we have to get rid of greed and profit and poverty and then 70 years later the USSR finally gives up the ghost on that little social experiment.

It is one thing to accept that there are problems that need solving, but it is another to jump to simplistic conclusions as to the causes and solutions, especially when we know that our logic is flawed to begin with.

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

asti_mivec

Corinthian, I totally agree with your sentiments regarding fools rushing in, BUT, I am not suggesting that anybody rush in. In fact, I am suggesting the opposite altogether and suggesting that people teach themselves and try to formulate their own opinions about how they would like to live and the type of world they would like their children to be brought up in.

However, my main point is that we should take some inspiration from the theme behind the film which promotes education and advancement and you seem determined to argue that point which is what I don't understand. I don't think that this should be ignored because of the way the film was made (ie. with nonsense facts in SOME instances) because whether the facts are correct or not we all know that war (amongst other things) is not good; it is fueled by religion in a lot of instances, it is also fuelled by greed and propaganda. The amount of money involved in arms dealing worldwide (both illegal and legal) is phenomenal.


So, are the "facts" we are told about weapons of mass destruction, (that never get found) or Al Queida, (whom they cant find anywhere) or about Vietnamese fighters bombing American ships in the Gulf of Tonkin (which was the trigger for America getting involved in the Vietnam war) all true?? If not then surely (by your own logic) we should be totally against all things American??

For those very reasons I think that the zeitgeist film has done a good job because whether it is using "invented facts" or not, this is how propaganda works and it is being used too much to promote much more unsavoury acts than those proposed in the films, so the film makers are simply using a tactic employed by governments/ngo's/media all over the world in order to promote their idea...fair enough two wrongs don't make a right but I don't see there being as much harm caused by the film makers as we have seen by American Presidents declaring war based on invented facts.

Surely this has to come into consideration at some stage?

The Corinthian

asti_mivec wrote: »

Corinthian, I totally agree with your sentiments regarding fools rushing in, BUT, I am not suggesting that anybody rush in. In fact, I am suggesting the opposite altogether and suggesting that people teach themselves and try to formulate their own opinions about how they would like to live and the type of world they would like their children to be brought up in.

Actually you are suggesting that people rush in. You're telling us that we should not worry about irritating little details like facts and the truth, and that we should simply 'believe'.

However, my main point is that we should take some inspiration from the theme behind the film which promotes education and advancement and you seem determined to argue that point which is what I don't understand.

And you appear to have completely ignored or otherwise failed to understand my point. Of course there is poverty and injustice and all the rest in the World. That's an easy sell.

However, this is not what this film sells; it instead sells causes and solutions for said problems, based upon what are essentially lies.

And that's ultimately the point, if someone attempts to convince another based upon invention and falsehood, it's called a lie.

For those very reasons I think that the zeitgeist film has done a good job because whether it is using "invented facts" or not, this is how propaganda works and it is being used too much to promote much more unsavoury acts than those proposed in the films, so the film makers are simply using a tactic employed by governments/ngo's/media all over the world in order to promote their idea...fair enough two wrongs don't make a right but I don't see there being as much harm caused by the film makers as we have seen by American Presidents declaring war based on invented facts.

The end justifies the means is effectively your argument.

Problem is that what this film puts forward takes a real problem and then invents the causes and the solutions. Based upon such disingenuous reasoning, one can say that there is no reason that any of said causes or solutions will help outside of fluke, and could well cause more harm than good. Indeed, if we accept that we have been lied to where it comes to the causes and the solutions, then there is absolutely no reason to believe that even the motivations are genuine.

I hate to admit it, but even the IMF argues a better case for eliminating World poverty than this movie.

asti_mivec

I don't think it's fair to say that I am suggesting that anybody "should simply believe" at all. I am not suggesting that in the slightest - maybe I haven't been very clear - as that goes against what I was trying to suggest, which is that there are some good points and some things worth taking out of the film, and I stand by that.

Like everything else in life, it is up to each of us individually to decide what we believe but it is made much easier to believe certain things based on the information available. Like everything else also, we have to use knowledge and educated reasoning when trying to decide what to believe rather than simply believing what we are constantly told via the media/church etc. That is pretty much my entire point.

To be honest, I don't remember exactly what solutions were put forward in the movie (I haven't watched the addendum yet) but as I've explained, I am not suggesting that everybody follow this theory to the letter or even similar.

And I am well aware that there are probably better solutions out there, but surely a movie that promotes the discussion (even here where it mightn't effect anybody) is worth watching if it contains even one bit of information that could be new to you.

To say that it suggests causes and solutions based on what are essentially lies is not entirely correct either and this is what I'm trying to explain (poorly maybe).

For example, the film mentions how the US got involved in the Vietnam war based on a lie - which did in turn make war mongers much richer than if there was no war - and this is something which IS true as far as I can find out, and something which contradicts the "truth" that has been made available to us previously.

This is one of the reasons that I suggest people watch this movie and take what they want from it, but to suggest that all of it is lies is not really fair.

Surely we would have to question the motivations of the IMF with their solutions too? This is what I mean, maybe their (venus project's) solutions aren't plausible, but a lot of the main ideas are! We can benefit as a people by taking certain aspects of the their ideas to work on a solution that we all agree on, not necessarily using their proposals but using all the information that we can gather to build the best possible society for all concerned.

The Corinthian

asti_mivec wrote: »

I don't think it's fair to say that I am suggesting that anybody "should simply believe" at all. I am not suggesting that in the slightest - maybe I haven't been very clear - as that goes against what I was trying to suggest, which is that there are some good points and some things worth taking out of the film, and I stand by that.

The good points are few and far between and frankly better conveyed by other books, movies and sources. The attempted deception, however, discredits the entire thing.

Like everything else in life, it is up to each of us individually to decide what we believe but it is made much easier to believe certain things based on the information available. Like everything else also, we have to use knowledge and educated reasoning when trying to decide what to believe rather than simply believing what we are constantly told via the media/church etc. That is pretty much my entire point.

It's not, you have repeatedly suggested that we should ignore inconsistencies and falsehoods in favour of the 'message'. The available information that this movie gives is largely fantasy and in that knowledge one would decide through educated reasoning to reject it.

You are arguing the opposite; to ignore educated reasoning in favour of the 'message'.

And I am well aware that there are probably better solutions out there, but surely a movie that promotes the discussion (even here where it mightn't effect anybody) is worth watching if it contains even one bit of information that could be new to you.

I am sure there is plenty of new information in it, the problem is that it is likely false.

To say that it suggests causes and solutions based on what are essentially lies is not entirely correct either and this is what I'm trying to explain (poorly maybe).

Fabricated or invented evidence is a lie. End of.

For example, the film mentions how the US got involved in the Vietnam war based on a lie - which did in turn make war mongers much richer than if there was no war - and this is something which IS true as far as I can find out, and something which contradicts the "truth" that has been made available to us previously.

The causes of the Vietnam war are a lot more complex than the movie claims. It would be like suggesting that World War I began solely as a result of the assassination of Arch-duke Ferdinand, which would ignore the competing imperial aspirations, personalities and other underlying factors that made up the Western World a century ago.

This is one of the reasons that I suggest people watch this movie and take what they want from it, but to suggest that all of it is lies is not really fair.

I would not suggest that all of it is lies, but a significant amount of it is. Without these lies, the arguments and reasoning behind the movie go nowhere, making the conclusions and implied solutions irrelevant.

Surely we would have to question the motivations of the IMF with their solutions too?

Naturally, but it helps if you don't try pushing porkies as you do as it discredits such examination.

This is what I mean, maybe their (venus project's) solutions aren't plausible, but a lot of the main ideas are! We can benefit as a people by taking certain aspects of the their ideas to work on a solution that we all agree on, not necessarily using their proposals but using all the information that we can gather to build the best possible society for all concerned.

But frankly there is little or nothing that is worthwhile in this dreadful opus. It's so built on shaky logic and fantasy that a rational viewer would really lose interest in it before long. After all, if you can't trust what it is telling you, why should you waste your time with it?

If you want to find solutions to World poverty, our time is better spent listening to the arguments of those who are not trying to feed us BS.

asti_mivec

Well I am going to bow out of this one way conversation as you clearly aren't actually listening to what I am saying and have actually taken to telling me what my point is along with saying that I am pushing porkies in the same reply.

I also notice that for a seemingly clever individual you actually articulated a response to one of my points that completely ignores what that point was and instead discusses something which isn't even close to what I was talking about.

Your point over and over again seems to be that because there are some (possibly loads) invalid statistics quoted in the film that it is all nonsense, but I don't know where you get all your 100% accurate information from to be honest, I would definitely be interested in reading/watching/listening to any of it.

The Corinthian

asti_mivec wrote: »

Well I am going to bow out of this one way conversation as you clearly aren't actually listening to what I am saying and have actually taken to telling me what my point is along with saying that I am pushing porkies in the same reply.

No, I have heard your point, but the problem with it is that it is flawed and I have pointed out why.

You have repeatedly tried to push the argument of "I know it's a lie, but maybe there is something good to be taken from it". I'm sorry but when something is built on lies, it loses credibility and nothing good can be taken from it - it simply cannot be trusted.

This is what you have repeatedly ignored to the point that you are now doing the Internet equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.

Your point over and over again seems to be that because there are some (possibly loads) invalid statistics quoted in the film that it is all nonsense

No, my point is that because there are numerous invalid, and indeed fabricated, statistics and other claims the entire work cannot be trusted. You may want to read the story of 'the boy who cried wolf'.

but I don't know where you get all your 100% accurate information from to be honest, I would definitely be interested in reading/watching/listening to any of it.

I'm not claiming to get any 100% accurate information, but I know when someone is bullshìtting me.

megmeg

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

Try 40% of the world living on 2$ a day, which is bad, but not as bad as 50%+ living on 3c a day...

...and that's the problem with things like this (Zeigeist etc.,). People hear something, think hey, that sounds sorta like what I think it might be like, and than believe it without any grounding in fact.

I had said I didn't know the exact stats, so I have no guilt regarding my post. You are making a huge assumption as to where I got my info from, and how I viewed it.

...and that's the problem with a Forum. People read a thread and have nothing of interest to post, so they pick on a comment and point out a fact the poster pointed out themselves.

Anyway, this post is not for this, it is to discuss relevant issues regarding TVP.

megmeg

The Corinthian wrote: »

Fact: There is a correlation between cars driving slower and an increase in car accidents.

Should we outlaw cars driving below a certain speed?

Of course, if we look at the problem again we find that the third factor in this correlation is ice on the roads, which in reality is the cause for the other two.

And this is the problem with developing simplistic solutions to complex problems. People rush in, tell everyone we have to get rid of greed and profit and poverty and then 70 years later the USSR finally gives up the ghost on that little social experiment.

It is one thing to accept that there are problems that need solving, but it is another to jump to simplistic conclusions as to the causes and solutions, especially when we know that our logic is flawed to begin with.

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

Why do ideas have to be complicated to work? I don't see the logic in a solution has to be complicated for a complicated problem.

The logic of TVP is not flawed. It is based on the fact the Monetary system is FALSE, fact. And it tries to deal with the problems it throws up with simple and quite beautiful solutions.

Also laws, why have a law against speeding, or driving too slow if you have a car as in TVP that drives for you, and can not possibly crash in the way our cars can now.
Laws are there to patch over problems, why don't we try to prevent them?
Surely you can see the logic in that??

nyarlothothep

megmeg wrote: »

Why do ideas have to be complicated to work? I don't see the logic in a solution has to be complicated for a complicated problem.

The logic of TVP is not flawed. It is based on the fact the Monetary system is FALSE, fact. And it tries to deal with the problems it throws up with simple and quite beautiful solutions.

Also laws, why have a law against speeding, or driving too slow if you have a car as in TVP that drives for you, and can not possibly crash in the way our cars can now.
Laws are there to patch over problems, why don't we try to prevent them?
Surely you can see the logic in that??

Hmmm, the world is complex, complex problems normally require multifaceted complex solutions. If you have a machine which has a number of broken parts a simple one track solution isn't going to fix all of them. Therefore you need a complex solution, ie involving more than one solution.

I do however believe that fundamental ideas can be the genesis of complex solutions. Example, lets make the world a better place, is a pure monological idea, however the implementation of that idea in the best way possible might require other simple ideas such as protection of human rights, the ends not justifying the means and so forth, further realization of these goals at a practical level requires yet more complex solutions.

Staying true to that one simple idea of creating a better world is not easy but a considered and intelligent approach should yield positive results. I don't know how the Venus Project will evolve, there are many alternative communities that seem to get along fine, the kibbutz being one even though its very poor and has its own history of problems, including a radical though misguided approach to parenting. On the flipside you have jonestown. Groupthink imo is often very dangerous.

megmeg

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Hmmm, the world is complex, complex problems normally require multifaceted complex solutions. If you have a machine which has a number of broken parts a simple one track solution isn't going to fix all of them. Therefore you need a complex solution, ie involving more than one solution.

I do however believe that fundamental ideas can be the genesis of complex solutions. Example, lets make the world a better place, is a pure monological idea, however the implementation of that idea in the best way possible might require other simple ideas such as protection of human rights, the ends not justifying the means and so forth, further realization of these goals at a practical level requires yet more complex solutions.

Staying true to that one simple idea of creating a better world is not easy but a considered and intelligent approach should yield positive results. I don't know how the Venus Project will evolve, there are many alternative communities that seem to get along fine, the kibbutz being one even though its very poor and has its own history of problems, including a radical though misguided approach to parenting. On the flipside you have jonestown. Groupthink imo is often very dangerous.

I still disagree, problems such as engineering does not have to be complicated. Go check out the venus project, and see for yourself.
I think such as the building of cities in an idea like the venus project is soooo simple, and i do think will work.

Jaques Fresco does not think it has to be complicated, his ideas are beautifully simplistic, it is only our programming that makes us believe it has to be so.

Please post up a practical, not emotional or family problem that you feel needs to have a complicated solution, and can not possibly be solved simply, and we can discuss.

I look forward to it!

The Corinthian

megmeg wrote: »

Why do ideas have to be complicated to work? I don't see the logic in a solution has to be complicated for a complicated problem.

I see you failed to grasp my point. I did not say that a solution cannot be simple, only that it should not be simplistic.

A simplistic solution is where one has not properly understood the problem and assumes that a simple solution may be applied. Of course, there might be a simple solution to even a complex problem, but the reality is that even if that is the case it will not be the simplistic solution; that has been arrived at through false logic (except, perhaps by fluke).

The logic of TVP is not flawed. It is based on the fact the Monetary system is FALSE, fact. And it tries to deal with the problems it throws up with simple and quite beautiful solutions.

Which monetary system is false? I presume you mean Western monetary systems? Perhaps even the notion of having a monetary system? How is it false? In what way?

Do you actually know what a monetary system is?

Also laws, why have a law against speeding, or driving too slow if you have a car as in TVP that drives for you, and can not possibly crash in the way our cars can now.

That sentence makes no sense. Even if we are to accept the claim that "a car as in TVP that drives for you, and can not possibly crash", you are essentially arguing "why have a law against speeding, or driving too slow" even though you can "crash in the way our cars can now". You have answered your own question.

Laws are there to patch over problems, why don't we try to prevent them?
Surely you can see the logic in that??

Another simplistic observation. Please, start with this, then read a book or two.

megmeg

I am not a simpleton that knows nothing of these things I talk about, I offer a different point of view, and I do not appreciate personal attacks. I am right in assuming that is against a couple of rules of this forum. I am suprised that all this thread seems to be is attack!!

I am very much in the know with my legal history, thankyou.


The simple fact we even have a Global Monetary system is false.
I am here to make a change, and contribute on a forum, not to debate on a forum, I was merely stating some facts, and they are disected with no reason but to pull them apart.

A huge amount of Laws really are there to 'patch' over problems that could be designed out of our lives.

I also will not grace you with an explanation of the obvious points you made. There is no need, those with critical thinking can make up their own mind, after researching a bit.

The Corinthian

megmeg wrote: »

I am not a simpleton that knows nothing of these things I talk about, I offer a different point of view, and I do not appreciate personal attacks. I am right in assuming that is against a couple of rules of this forum. I am suprised that all this thread seems to be is attack!!

In fairness, my attacks have been against your arguments, but you are making it difficult with your unsubstantiated claims to keep it at that.

The simple fact we even have a Global Monetary system is false.

Feel free to back up that statement. Indeed, you need to clarify it as calling something simply 'false' isn't exactly descriptive.

Don't get me wrong, I personally think the present nature over-reliance on free floating currencies is severely flawed, but I can also see how it has evolved to this point and - most importantly - why; because ultimately if you don't like how it works now, you'll still have to replace it with something that deals with those issues that created it (nine-foot lizard men aside) in the first place.

Ultimately though, simply stating something is false and expecting us to take your word for it is not going to cut it. The onus in any argument is upon the person making a claim to back it up. Unless you are looking for a bit of blind faith, in which case one of the religious fora may be more suitable to your needs than humanities.

I am here to make a change, and contribute on a forum, not to debate on a forum, I was merely stating some facts, and they are disected with no reason but to pull them apart.

You're not stating facts. You're stating claims. Supporting a source that has been demonstrated to have fabricated similar claims. And then you get upset when we simply won't accept them at face value and point at the man behind the curtain.

In essence you're here to preach and you want us to either accept it or keep quiet. Sorry, but you won't find that here.

A huge amount of Laws really are there to 'patch' over problems that could be designed out of our lives.

I completely accept that some (how many is debatable) laws are are there to 'patch' over problems that could be designed out of our lives, however that is already a climbdown from your previous universal pronouncement for laws in general.

I also will not grace you with an explanation of the obvious points you made. There is no need, those with critical thinking can make up their own mind, after researching a bit.

LOL. Unfortunately for you, my critical thinking is presently critically questioning you. Or do you believe that you should be exempt from question?

megmeg

Your assumption that I am here to preach and if you don't agree I want you to keep quiet is a projected opinion.

Also, your opinion that I feel exempt from your critical questioning is again, a projected opinion.

I am sure you know how money is made? Money is created out of debt.
The Monetary System is a flawed system in itself, it is perpetuated by debt. If every country, and person in it payed off all their debt, there would be no money left. A friend recently likened the Monetary System to Cancer. Cancer eventually kills it's host, and hense it dies too. We, the host, can not continue to live in this way, so the system itself will die. It is a system of debt and servitude, and if we can not find jobs to perpetuate this servitude to pay our debt, then it will fail. There are so many other factors involved, too many to go into here. I can't post a link, as I may be barred. But, please go check this out yourself, go find The Zeitgeist Movement website. We have abundant resources in this world, but without enough money to pay for them, we can not obtain them, you can't see this is flawed????
Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. They rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do they have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was No, they did not have enough money, nor did they have enough gold; but they did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war. And war kills.

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy (resource based), EVERYONE can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society. In this current system, there are always many, many, many billions that are left to starve, or live in extreme poverty, I hope now you can see the Monetary System is flawed.

Social problems result from scarcity. Scarcity is perpetuated by Corporations, to keep demand for goods and services high. I have heard examples of Diamonds being burned to keep demand up, if diamonds were everywere they would not be so expensive. All of the above has one thing in common, The Monetary System. When a few nations control most of the world's resources, there are going to be international disputes no matter how many laws or treaties are signed. If we wish to end war, crime, hunger, poverty, territorial disputes, and nationalism, we must work toward a future in which all resources are accepted as the common heritage of all people. This would leave us free to explore the universe, inner and outer.:)

Regarding Laws, I made no such universal statement.

The Corinthian

megmeg wrote: »

Your assumption that I am here to preach and if you don't agree I want you to keep quiet is a projected opinion.

Also, your opinion that I feel exempt from your critical questioning is again, a projected opinion.

Neither is projected; both are deduced from what you have told us and I have even quoted you where relevant.

I am sure you know how money is made? Money is created out of debt.
The Monetary System is a flawed system in itself, it is perpetuated by debt. If every country, and person in it payed off all their debt, there would be no money left. A friend recently likened the Monetary System to Cancer. Cancer eventually kills it's host, and hense it dies too. We, the host, can not continue to live in this way, so the system itself will die. It is a system of debt and servitude, and if we can not find jobs to perpetuate this servitude to pay our debt, then it will fail. There are so many other factors involved, too many to go into here. I can't post a link, as I may be barred. But, please go check this out yourself, go find The Zeitgeist Movement website. We have abundant resources in this world, but without enough money to pay for them, we can not obtain them, you can't see this is flawed????

I don't think you understand the basics of economics.

To begin with money long pre-dates the present system of debt, which in turn is actually not fuelled by money, but by consumption and investment - consumption and investment that outstripped, in terms of growth, what money was based upon previous to the post-War era.

If debt vanished, there would still be money, just as there was money 2,000 years ago. Ultimately money is simply a medium of exchange, and whether we base its intrinsic value upon commodities or derivatives or thin air (not far off the truth) it won't vanish simply because you believe, erroneously, that it is based upon debt alone.

Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. They rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do they have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was No, they did not have enough money, nor did they have enough gold; but they did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war. And war kills.

What's your point?

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy (resource based), EVERYONE can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.

Back that up. Seriously, you're just coming out with wild claims without making any attempt to justify them.

In this current system, there are always many, many, many billions that are left to starve, or live in extreme poverty, I hope now you can see the Monetary System is flawed.

No, because you still have not established any connection between Western monetary system and famine. Or, for that matter, what the Western monetary system is.

Social problems result from scarcity. Scarcity is perpetuated by Corporations, to keep demand for goods and services high. I have heard examples of Diamonds being burned to keep demand up, if diamonds were everywere they would not be so expensive.

Source please.

All of the above has one thing in common, The Monetary System. When a few nations control most of the world's resources, there are going to be international disputes no matter how many laws or treaties are signed. If we wish to end war, crime, hunger, poverty, territorial disputes, and nationalism, we must work toward a future in which all resources are accepted as the common heritage of all people. This would leave us free to explore the universe, inner and outer.:)

Nope. You appear to be labouring under a number of delusions that leave you feeling you could solve all of the World's ills with a simple solution based upon flawed logic.

Scarcity exists and will continue to exist. We could divide up all the resources equally, but then how long before tribe A decides they want more and take it from tribe B?

Regarding Laws, I made no such universal statement.

Ahh, now...

wrote: »

Laws are there to patch over problems, why don't we try to prevent them?

...you're just telling porkies now.

mrodub

I have to agree with megmeg we never adress the root causes of certain types of aborant behovoir in society or when we do we refuse to make the changes neccasary a good example of this is the book the spirit level which points out many facts about more equal socities haveing lower crimes rates etc

As regards technology not being used to its full potential that is a fact not a projection
A hydroponic farm can grow food in the desert
A maglev train runs on no fossul fuels at all and is faster
Free electricity was designed over 100 years ago and is patented by the morgan group the list goes on the reason we dont use technology to its fullest is because there is less profit in abundance for all people

Money is created out of debt if you doubt this read modern money mechanics also the monatary system of today and 2000 years ago differs greatly so there is no real comparision

megmeg

This thread was started to discuss The Venus Project, and I am doing just that. These technologies are from TVP, and are real, go check them out.
NOTHING I have said is not fact, it is ALL fact. I research this stuff man, do you??
Youn really need to go check out the stuff I suggested, if you come back to me with more relevant questions, I will address them with you. But, I will not continue this as you are not looking into the things I am saying, just cleverly dismissing them. You are an experienced Moderator, I can see, and it shows from the way you project and deflect.

All countries Monetary Systems are connected, did you not know that? They are interdependant, or one and the same. It is you sir who knows nothing of the Monetary System. Is your worldview so closed that you really think that our spending is NOT affecting the billions that are starving? Well it is, go look into it before you come back to me.

I will not continue with you, as I will get nowere.

The Corinthian

mrodub wrote: »

I have to agree with megmeg we never adress the root causes of certain types of aborant behovoir in society or when we do we refuse to make the changes neccasary a good example of this is the book the spirit level which points out many facts about more equal socities haveing lower crimes rates etc

Here we go with more 'facts' being bandied about. And what are these "more equal societies" with "lower crimes rates"? Socialist countries? I think you'll find that crime was kept in check there thanks to the likes of the KGB rather than equality? Or perhaps you are referring to a few tribal communities, which no doubt would scale well to modern populations.

A hydroponic farm can grow food in the desert

How much food? Is it self-sustaining? Do you have any evidence or sources that point to research done in this area?

A maglev train runs on no fossul fuels at all and is faster

It runs on electricity, much like many public transport systems (e.g. trams), which in turn is generated using fossel fuel and fission reactors in most countries.

Hydro and wind generated electricity sometimes supplement energy needs, however only a fraction of our energy needs can be supplied this way at present (source) and even then, such means do not come without their own environmental consequences - or do people think that wind farms and hydro-electric damns don't affect the environment?

Free electricity was designed over 100 years ago and is patented by the morgan group the list goes on the reason we dont use technology to its fullest is because there is less profit in abundance for all people

A theory that ultimately never got anywhere was mooted a hundred years ago, just like many other theories and experimental follies of the same period.

Just as 'cold fusion' has been 'discovered' about a half dozen times in the last half century.

How is this one different? Other than it is popular with conspiracy theorists?

Money is created out of debt if you doubt this read modern money mechanics also the monatary system of today and 2000 years ago differs greatly so there is no real comparision

Rather than read more Zeitgeist-type conspiracy tripe for your economic theory, you might actually try ready some actual books on economic theory.

The Corinthian

megmeg wrote: »

This thread was started to discuss The Venus Project, and I am doing just that. These technologies are from TVP, and are real, go check them out.

So, rather than providing any proof here, you're suggesting that for verification I should check out a source that you have already accepted includes falsehoods.

NOTHING I have said is not fact, it is ALL fact. I research this stuff man, do you??

You appear to only research it in places like the Venus Project though, which I would hardly consider reliable. Assuming you've done even that, as you have not demonstrated any of your research, only claimed that you have.

Youn really need to go check out the stuff I suggested, if you come back to me with more relevant questions, I will address them with you. But, I will not continue this as you are not looking into the things I am saying, just cleverly dismissing them. You are an experienced Moderator, I can see, and it shows from the way you project and deflect.

Now, now; you don't worm yourself out of this so easily. The problem with what you're coming out with is very simple - you state something as a 'fact' and then refuse to back this up when said 'fact' is questioned.

You'll forgive me if I say I do not trust your 'facts'; I believe some of them are pure fantasy and others are based upon an understanding of economics that would not get you past your first year in college.

Thus the onus is on you. You say they're facts, then prove it. Hell, don't prove it, but at least provide credible evidence. But you've not bother with this, outside of suggesting we should all go study the truth according to the Venus Project - it's like a creationist suggesting that creationism is fact and we can all go find the evidence in the Bible.

I will not continue this.

Don't then. Go preach somewhere else. This is a humanities forum, not a pulpit.

mrodub

"Here we go with more 'facts' being bandied about. And what are these "more equal societies" with "lower crimes rates"? Socialist countries? I think you'll find that crime was kept in check there thanks to the likes of the KGB rather than equality? Or perhaps you are referring to a few tribal communities, which no doubt would scale well to modern populations. "

No actually the book i reffered you to was released this year and focus its studies on Scandinavia primarily but also goes into america and the rest of the world.Maybe you should try reading things before you assume to no what they are about

"How much food? Is it self-sustaining? Do you have any evidence or sources that point to research done in this area?"

If you new what a hydroponic farm was you would understand that they are self sustainig and can be made as big as required again look it up before you close down to new information and assume i am wrong if your interested in the idea why dont you look it up and read about it

"It runs on electricity, much like many public transport systems (e.g. trams), which in turn is generated using fossel fuel and fission reactors in most countries."

Actually it runs on magnets
mag = magnet


"Rather than read more Zeitgeist-type conspiracy tripe for your economic theory, you might actually try ready some actual books on economic theory"

How do you no what books i have read?
You are projection an assumption about me based on nothing but a few lines that seems very closed minded.
Also the book i reffered you to was released by the US federal reserve not zeitgeist.

"A theory that ultimately never got anywhere was mooted a hundred years ago, just like many other theories and experimental follies of the same period."
Actually it worked fine thats the reason JP morgan patended it becuase he could not sell it
I would suggest you read the works of nikola tesla for futher info on the concept but i suppose it is more conspiricy stuff that science business.

The Corinthian

mrodub wrote: »

No actually the book i reffered you to was released this year and focus its studies on Scandinavia primarily but also goes into america and the rest of the world.Maybe you should try reading things before you assume to no what they are about

Which book did you refer to?

If you new what a hydroponic farm was you would understand that they are self sustainig and can be made as big as required again look it up before you close down to new information and assume i am wrong if your interested in the idea why dont you look it up and read about it

Then educate me with some sources that back up your claims rather than this tired "if you knew you'd agree with me" BS.

Actually it runs on magnets
mag = magnet

And what powers the magnets? Pixie dust?

How do you no what books i have read?

From your lack of understanding of economic theory.

Actually it worked fine thats the reason JP morgan patended it becuase he could not sell it
I would suggest you read the works of nikola tesla for futher info on the concept but i suppose it is more conspiricy stuff that science business.

So JP Morgan owns the patent (a monopoly) on a technology that everyone would have to pay them to use, but are sitting on it. That makes sense... :rolleyes:

megmeg

Look, you just want to argue. I have given you all you need to go research this. It is not me that looks silly..................

I still can't see why you will not see I HAVE given you the facts, you just need to go look for yourself.

If you spent half as much time researching the FACTS I have given you access to, as you do in this forum, you would learn something.

By the way, as for telling me I can not worm my way out of this, this is only a forum man, and you are not God.

The Corinthian

megmeg wrote: »

Look, you just want to argue. I have given you all you need to go research this. It is not me that looks silly..................

You have actually given nothing other than the Venus Project and similar tin-foil-hat type sources. Nothing.

I still can't see why you will not see I HAVE given you the facts, you just need to go look for yourself.

You have stated claims. The onus is on you to back up your claims, not for anyone else to disprove them. I have said this repeatedly.

If you spent half as much time researching the FACTS I have given you access to, as you do in this forum, you would learn something.

And as we saw earlier in this thread, people have done research on the Venus Project and found it to be riddled with falsehoods. That is what we all learned.

By the way, as for telling me I can not worm my way out of this, this is only a forum man, and you are not God.

Please, for someone who in his last post swore that you would not continue this discussion as a means of avoiding any attempt at backing up your claims, you don't have much of a moral leg to stand on.

And of course I'm not God. Or Santa Claus. I'm not the one demanding blind faith, after all.

mrodub

Yes it appears that way i am excusing myself from this conversation it is not what i consider intellectual discourse its merly you projectiong assumption about what i am saying and not actually reading what i am saying and assuming i dont read based on one post were i disagree with you.
So go ahead debunk me now that i am no going to reply but bear in my your sources so far are wikipedia which is merely an intoductuary to an idea not a basis for an inteligent opinion i suggest you read more indept into science than just wikipedia before you assume i am wrong.
This is not meant as an insult although i assume you will precieve it that way but i do not feel i can talk to you on this you have either never heard of or disagree with,without you resorting to sarcasm and ad hominem.
Never the less i bear no ill will towards you sir and wish you well

Wibbs

mrodub wrote: »

"Actually it runs on magnets
mag = magnet

You lost me there TBH. What do you think powers the massively powerful electro magnets? With respect you can't hope to argue a point when something that basic is wrong.

It's like the green notion of electric cars. yea great no pollution from the car itself, but the coal fired station supplying the juice? ehhhh. Bit of a problem there ted. Same with people and their hybrids. yes they're (slightly) more efficient(though some deisels are even more so), but their CO footprint is much bigger than a standard car. the batteries alone have all sorts of rare earth elements in their construction.

Like I said in my first reply to this, anything that comes from the zeitgeist crowd I view with the utmost suspicion. Yes there are the odd facts in there, but it's like finding a needle in a haystack. The first movie was largely tripe. The first section of said movie on religion didn't have a single fact in it. Completely bogus. A rehashed version of the christ conspiracy that was debunked decades ago. Not by christians either. That set me thinking.

Much of the ideas for the halcyon world of the future kept from us by big business etc is also largely bogus. Cheap power? If I could build a cold fusion reactor in my shed, I would be worth billions overnight. They're pumping billions into it as it is.

This is the problem with the some of the hippie crowd. They have notions that are rarely backed up by reality or hard science.

Yes I do think we need to have a more self sustained existence. I'd go nuclear in the morning if I ruled the world. The drop in CO output would be massive. The hippies don't like the nuclears though. When Lovelock suggested it they flipped that their previous saviour and inventor of the Gaia principle would even suggest such a thing. Wind power is all fine and dandy, but it's just not enough for large scale use. Even if we dialed back on personal usage. Hydro is far more efficient but also brings it's own problems.

The Corinthian

mrodub wrote: »

Yes it appears that way i am excusing myself from this conversation it is not what i consider intellectual discourse its merly you projectiong assumption about what i am saying and not actually reading what i am saying and assuming i dont read based on one post were i disagree with you.

Again, just in case you did not understand what I have said:

• In argument, the onus of proof is upon the person making the initial claim. The only case where an initial claim can be taken as fact is it is an accepted axiom.
• You have made numerous claims, stated as fact, with no attempt at proof or even supplying credible evidence.

Now you may now shuffle your feet and mumble that you don't think this is what you consider intellectual discourse or attempt to play the ad hominem card all you want, but fundamentally the above two points are factual in relation to this discussion and have left your argument wanting.

The Corinthian

mrodub wrote: »

Yes it appears that way i am excusing myself from this conversation it is not what i consider intellectual discourse its merly you projectiong assumption about what i am saying and not actually reading what i am saying and assuming i dont read based on one post were i disagree with you.

I've just noticed that you have just replied on behalf on megmeg, as it was he who was excusing himself from the discussion, not you.

Unless of course, you are using multiple accounts here to agree with yourself - in which case, upps! :P

mrodub

tut tut tut you really do assume the worst of people
I was not replying on her behalf i was agreeing with her as we both think you are incapable of an adult discussion or is it difficult for you to accept two people find your manners less than appealing.
I do not see the point in having an argument with you, if you want to talk like an adult that’s fine i will back up what i say, but i will not bother to do that with someone who just wants to argue with me and not talk to me.Your last post proves my point you just assume the worst of people with no proof and no discussion you need to listen to your own advice about backing up your claims ie track the two IPs and see if were the same
This is why i no longer choose to further the conversation with you as your more interested in attacking people who you don’t agree with than finding out why they think the way they do
You never once asked me a polite question which i would have been happy to respond to instead you made a clumsy attempt to insult my intellect by implying I need to read more lol, nor did you answer any of my questions
So let’s just leave it at that we will have to agree to disagree but i don’t think you will be able to you'll have to get one more little insult in lol