forget politics and join the movement

drunken_munky52

The elite power systems are little affected in the long run by traditional protest and political movements. We must move beyond these 'establishment rebellions' and work with a tool much more powerful:
We will stop supporting the system, while constantly advocating knowledge, peace, unity and compassion. We cannot "fight the system". Hate, anger and the 'war' mentality are failed means for change, for they perpetuate the same tools the corrupt, established power systems use to maintain control to begin with.

Find out more on the goal of the movement at the following address

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?Itemid=50

Kama

Unless you wish to discuss theoretical political issues raised by 'the movement', this sub-forum is probably the wrong place for your post, and it will most likely end up in Conspiracy Theory.

I for one welcome our new techno-utopian cybernated overlords and their omnipotent domination of human societies; others will not acquiesce as easily.

drunken_munky52

Kama wrote: »

Unless you wish to discuss theoretical political issues raised by 'the movement', this sub-forum is probably the wrong place for your post, and it will most likely end up in Conspiracy Theory.

How is the my previous text Conspiracy Theory?

There are no "theoretical political issues" raised by the movement and thats the point. Its goal is to get the human race to abandon the notion that we need politics, money and laws.

Lets start the debate so... and please dont brand me a conspiracy theorist, nutjob, misinformed, etc. We can easily live in a world without Obamas, Cowens, Hitlers, etc, yet we always give these idiots power they misuse again and again... and what do we do? We sit back on our couches, huff and puff at them on the TV screens... its time to abandon these outdated structures and transcend the current system.

Kama wrote: »

I for one welcome our new techno-utopian cybernated overlords and their omnipotent domination of human societies; others will not acquiesce as easily.

Thats another good point; others will not acquiesce as easily. This is the biggest barrier to be broken down. It can be acheived with a chess game like stratagy... this of course must begin with a critical mass of society buying into the idea, thus creating a chain reaction throughout. Anyone who still does not buy into this new world will be a minority eventually.

Kama

I probably shouldn't encourage this sort of thing

I'll be harshly rebuked for drawing the sub-forum into inefficience, by our resident cybernate overlords. Their computational Justice shall no doubt be swift and Turing-complete.

I, in my wetware-limitations, may be fallible, yet they never err.

How is the my previous text Conspiracy Theory?

Simple Answer:
It links to Zeitgeist. This, alone, will make almost anyone flag it as 'Conspiracy Theory'.


More Pedantic Answer:

There was a saying about 'conspiracy theory' once, that it was 'lay theory', which is to say undeveloped and naive...Zetigeist fits the bill here, with an unwieldy attempt at the synthesis of the Gnostics (from Elaine Pagels et al), opposition to fractional reserve lending, the American 'conspiracy theory' tradition of the 'New World Order' and global government, New Age spiritualist concepts, and 911 Truth,with a almost-Kurzweilian faith in the abilities of AI to solve the allocation problem, and assert final closure to the field of political discourse.

It fits within the rubric of conspiracy theory as it argues that there is an elite political-economic conspiracy, the System, which is dominating our minds. Such views are not unique; Marxist or 'critical' ideological readings, and the Baudrillardian concept of 'code' have similarities, but in more simpler terms whenever someone disagrees with an opponent but cannot make a argument that is rationally communicable, they tend to accuse the opponent of being 'brainwashed', 'misled' by a total media complex, and so on. This rhetoric is found at all ends of ideologies.

The dominant themes of 'invasion' and 'control' seem symptomatic of paranoid inclinations; fantasies of threatening, controlling forces entering and manipulating are common to such experiences. The 'splitting' or Spaltung of an evil cadre versus a good everyone else is a classically paranoid-schizoid one; denial of blame to the self, and projection of blame into a 'bad container', allowing the paranoid to consider themselves pure. This is especially common in 'New Age' theories; the essentially purity and innocence of the Self requires for absolute evil to be located externally.

The convenience of 'conspiracy theory' is precisely within this 'anti-political' move; problems exist because there are Bad People out there, prototypically the Jews, and the problems of the world are due not to human fallibility and imperfections, miscommunications, and contingent chance, but a directed and malevolent force that seeks to keep people in ignorance and a state of control. As Zizek pointed out, the truly unacceptable horror would not be a cabal of Skull and Bones Satanists running the world, but far more monstrous than that: no ones hand is on the helm.

please dont brand me a conspiracy theorist, nutjob, misinformed, etc.

Not attempting to. I'm been a 'conspiracy theorist' myself, more or less, for just under 20 years, was psychologically a 'New Ager' for about 5, have lived in non-monetary intentional communities, was Gnostic-inclined for a while, and so on. So my criticism is kinda internal. What I find peculiar in Zeitgeist is its symmetry with Dan Brown: a lot of pre-existing ideas that had been floating around, put together in an easily-consumed form. The problem is, if you want to convince large numbers of people, you overstate your surety, and oversimplify your message. At which point it becomes propaganda.

I am implying with the reference to CT that if you don't want to talk politics, even the politics of being anti-politics, you're in the wrong place. There won't be a debate, even with me. If you are trying to 'consciousness-raise', you're definitely in the wrong forum; if, however, you wish to discuss these issues, and are prepared to subject them to reasoned critique, then continue on.

There are no "theoretical political issues" raised by the movement and thats the point.

If so, then this post is in the wrong forum, and will be moved. If you wish to continue to discuss it here, I'd advise you to examine this system of belief for political content that you may not have noticed. It has been said that 'fish have no word for water'; similarly, in ideological terms, we tend to miss the properly-political issues by designating them 'not political'.

More appropriately to this forum, however, the praxis that is advised (refusing the legitimacy of the System in its entirety) is a radical political statement, and a revolutionary one. Asserting the revolution from a predominantly liberal-democratic property system to one based on a equitable, need-based, non-monetary, command economy, AI-assisted technocracy is a political aspiration.

Anyone who still does not buy into this new world will be a minority eventually.

Which leads to the inevitably question for any ideology with totalitarian aspirations; what is to happen to those who refuse to be 'assimilated' into the borganism? Shall they be 're-educated'? In camps, perhaps? Pour encourager les autres?

Zetigeist, as well as a now highly-successful commercial enterprise, is moving towards being a political 'movement', in a populist or anti-elitist vein. If you are serious about it, as an activist, it would be wise to examine the political principles for which you are standing, albeit apparently unknown to yourself.

drunken_munky52

Kama wrote: »

If so, then this post is in the wrong forum, and will be moved. If you wish to continue to discuss it here, I'd advise you to examine this system of belief for political content that you may not have noticed. It has been said that 'fish have no word for water'; similarly, in ideological terms, we tend to miss the properly-political issues by designating them 'not political'.

Is it not the case that lack of an ideolgy in effect and ideolgy itself? You could draw the Ziegeist Movement as a far left socialist/communist idelogy, yet I, along with nearly a million others so far have a conviction about their message. This thread should be in the topic of political theory as it challanges the foundation of the political establishment, however non-engaged with politics itself, it should not be ignored... people need to hear this message.

Kama wrote: »

More appropriately to this forum, however, the praxis that is advised (refusing the legitimacy of the System in its entirety) is a radical political statement, and a revolutionary one. Asserting the revolution from a predominantly liberal-democratic property system to one based on a equitable, need-based, non-monetary, command economy, AI-assisted technocracy is a political aspiration.

It is quite hard as I am sure you can picture, to illustrate to people this message and what its actaully meant for. The ZM are not trying to be revolutionary, they are just trying to tell people that the world we live in today is flawed for various reasons and gets to the root causes. i.e. division, elitism, greed. Which as the quite correctly show, are issues which have other root causes. i.e religion, money, etc. They propose a resource based economy where everyone in the world has abundance. Also, the thing I love most about their message is the fact that "technology" solves problems, not laws that are used as firemen to tackle an issue which goes back to a root cause. Tough a world like they propose may seem imperfect, I am convinced that it would be far better than the world we live in today.

Kama wrote: »

Which leads to the inevitably question for any ideology with totalitarian aspirations; what is to happen to those who refuse to be 'assimilated' into the borganism? Shall they be 're-educated'? In camps, perhaps? Pour encourager les autres?

Exactly, but not in camps or hospitals. Once these leftovers from the world we know today attempt to fight this new world, they will quickly realise that the tables have been turned and now they have to play by someone elses rules to survive. They would have no choice, but they would not be punished for it.

Kama wrote: »

Zetigeist, as well as a now highly-successful commercial enterprise, is moving towards being a political 'movement', in a populist or anti-elitist vein. If you are serious about it, as an activist, it would be wise to examine the political principles for which you are standing, albeit apparently unknown to yourself.

ZM principles remain the same as they did when they first started. The reason I think you say they a moving towards a "political movement", is becuase of the current climate we find ourselves in today. Normal people are obviously upset losing their jobs and when they see that fat cat culture still prospers, they understandably become anti-rich, thus this anger is now virusing itself to the ZM and watering down its legitimate message.

In regards to myself, I am still on a rollercoaster with my political agenda...

The one quetion that annoys me most is: How can I turn my back on politics when nobody is with me? For me, my aim for now is to try get as many people on board with me so I do not feel ostrichsized.

nyarlothothep

Society needs laws as the coding which ensures peoples welfare and personal liberties. Granted laws are passed which abuse these rights and existing ones are exploited for personal gain but to say a society can function without laws is just plain naive and fails to account for the darker aspects of human nature.

On money, well thats open for debate but I err on the side that we need a representational system for labour hours worked. How that system functions, whether for the benefit of the elite or for a communal working system is another issue.

Politics is an inevitable product of human existence and indeed for many animals and even insects like ants.

These three things you mentioned can be used for good or bad, for self gain or for the benefit of the many, but to say that they can all be swept away in the creation of a euphoric new utopia is totally misguided. There is no one simple catch all solution to the problems endemic in human society. It is a painful evolution, hopefully grasping towards a better future, as it has done up till now but there is no quick fix answer. The input/output law of the universe would determine that.

In addition how are you any better in your suppositions than the very elitists you seek to overthrow when you say something like this

"Once these leftovers from the world we know today attempt to fight this new world, they will quickly realise that the tables have been turned and now they have to play by someone elses rules to survive. They would have no choice, but they would not be punished for it."

This isn't any different from what they do. If such an order were to exist it would just perpetuate the cycles of unjustified power that have existed since the dawn of man.

drunken_munky52

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Society needs laws as the coding which ensures peoples welfare and personal liberties. Granted laws are passed which abuse these rights and existing ones are exploited for personal gain but to say a society can function without laws is just plain naive and fails to account for the darker aspects of human nature.

Granted, we need coding for behavior. Laws are only deterents, they do not address the underlying reasons why crime occurs in the first place. A society built on abandunce shared equally among the populous, would eliminate 99% of crime, becuase most crime is commited out of the fact that scarcity exists. This means that in theory 99% of criminals are deep down, decent animals. They have just ended up bad apples becuase of root social causes or part of a vicious cycle.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

On money, well thats open for debate but I err on the side that we need a representational system for labour hours worked. How that system functions, whether for the benefit of the elite or for a communal working system is another issue.

Labour I believe should be solely focussed on:
1. Engineering our ways out of problems
2. Engineering automated machines to free humans from having to work at all

On the second point, I refer to the "resource based economic system" proposed by Zeigeist. It has stated and I believe, that we are currently at the stage of technological evolution to accelerate into a chore free society. All the great benefits include, freeing our minds for what is really important to the human spirit. e.g. family, soul, etc

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Politics is an inevitable product of human existence and indeed for many animals and even insects like ants.

Nature has provided us with a higher level of intelligence for a reason. Given our conscious capability, we are able to transcend the norms of nature.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

These three things you mentioned can be used for good or bad, for self gain or for the benefit of the many, but to say that they can all be swept away in the creation of a euphoric new utopia is totally misguided. There is no one simple catch all solution to the problems endemic in human society. It is a painful evolution, hopefully grasping towards a better future, as it has done up till now but there is no quick fix answer. The input/output law of the universe would determine that.

Agreed with you. Its not perfect and it would take time. Hell, just me talking about it here is probobly the beginning. But realise that resource based society is far better than what we have now.

In a world where 1% of the population owns 40% of the planet's wealth…in a world where over 30,000 children die every single day from the effects of poverty and preventable diseases one thing is clear:
Something is very wrong.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

In addition how are you any better in your suppositions than the very elitists you seek to overthrow when you say something like this

"Once these leftovers from the world we know today attempt to fight this new world, they will quickly realise that the tables have been turned and now they have to play by someone elses rules to survive. They would have no choice, but they would not be punished for it."

This isn't any different from what they do. If such an order were to exist it would just perpetuate the cycles of unjustified power that have existed since the dawn of man.

Yes, exactly. What I should have been able to illustrate to you, and you did get it, you just didn't use what you said as a constructive tool. You said "If such an order were to exist it would just perpetuate the cycles of unjustified power that have existed since the dawn of man." Thats how easy it is to make the change. Man is easily programmable, so I just proposed using the human instinct for survival for a good cause. Just becuase "they" use it, does not mean I am also evil for exploiting this certainty in human behavior.

AnotherYou

I came on here to do exactly that what you've done here drunken_munkey.


However, I think I'll just sit and listen quietly after this one as it seems someone has busted out their thesaurus and is really making a go of it.

Good luck, I'll wait on the sidelines for the mo!

Ostrom

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Also, the thing I love most about their message is the fact that "technology" solves problems, not laws that are used as firemen to tackle an issue which goes back to a root cause. Tough a world like they propose may seem imperfect, I am convinced that it would be far better than the world we live in today.

The technological optimist debate has long been put to rest in ecological economics by Georgescu-Roegen. Limits to growth aside, it is still irresponsible guesswork - entropy, etc.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Exactly, but not in camps or hospitals. Once these leftovers from the world we know today attempt to fight this new world, they will quickly realise that the tables have been turned and now they have to play by someone elses rules to survive. They would have no choice, but they would not be punished for it.

What kind of people will they be? The leftover obsolete 'elites'? The overthrown government? Industrialists? Middle class? Working poor? Like all similar totalitarian inclined, you seem to have conferred the moral authority upon yourself, at the expense of the (impossibly) class conscious leftovers. Is the ZM unconcerned with consensus rule? How will the transition work in practice? Is there any historical or contemporary mode of production to draw comparison?

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

The one quetion that annoys me most is: How can I turn my back on politics when nobody is with me? For me, my aim for now is to try get as many people on board with me so I do not feel ostrichsized.

If I am understanding you correctly, this wont be a problem once the militant minority are in place (based on the quote below)

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Thats another good point; others will not acquiesce as easily. This is the biggest barrier to be broken down. It can be acheived with a chess game like stratagy... this of course must begin with a critical mass of society buying into the idea, thus creating a chain reaction throughout. Anyone who still does not buy into this new world will be a minority eventually

Kama wrote: »

I, in my wetware-limitations, may be fallible, yet they never err.

I'll raise your (other thread) occasional Schumpeterianism with '...formulating with unsurpassed force that feeling of being thwarted which is the auto-therapeutic attitude of the unsuccessful many', socialistic deliverance and all. Creative destruction is not limited to the concrete business cycle.

Kama

I, like you, believe in the possibility of an 'economy of abundance', but its not sufficient to say 'do away with money and roll out the superintelligent machines and it'll all be grand'. All economies are already 'resource-based', and many of our problems come drawing down this resource base. The God-machines will require more resources to produce, more energy, which is an input that is already scarce.

Specifically, the abolition of money leaves no way of determining how scarce goods are allocated, or on what basis the UberCray supercomputers make this need-based allocation. Who gets to program the machines (assuming the lack of a perfectly benevolent post-Singularity AGI), again, is a political question. Who gets what, when, and why?

Ironically, for an ecological-egalitarian, the proposed system looks more like a distrorted fantasy of the present day than a future; a cybernetic technocratic domination of the world, moving faster towards ecological breakdown, with a Cornucopian faith that 'tech' will necessarily provide the efficient-and-therefore-right 'solution' to the nagging problem of humanity.

bonkey

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

In a world where 1% of the population owns 40% of the planet's wealth…in a world where over 30,000 children die every single day from the effects of poverty and preventable diseases one thing is clear:
Something is very wrong.

I agree entirely.

Here's something to consider though*

Given the current world population, the average American consumes something like 12 times their fair share of resources. The average European consumes something like 5 times their fair share of resources. Ireland falls somewhere in between the two.

So, lets not get hung up on the super rich. If you are an average European consumer, how much of your consumption are you willing to give up? Will you give up half of what you have? That will only put you at 2.5 times your fair share? Give up 80% of what you have, and that puts you in a fair position.

If you have a decent job (or your parents, if you're not independant), then odds are you're over the average...so you could be looking at more like 90% of what you have.

This is the cold hard truth.

While its convenient to point fingers at the ultra-rich and say that they should lose loads in order to build a fairer world, when we start looking at a truly fair world, then almost everyone campaigning for such a thing will have to make significant sacrifices as well. Everyone they're trying to bring to their cause...they need them to be willing to give away the lions share of what they own, of what they earn, and of what they consume.

We never heard this story, though. We hear about how there's something wrong about how the ultra-rich 1% own 40%, but not how the comparatively-well-off 20% own well over 95%. You (whoever you are, reading this) are almost certainly in that 20%, regardless how hard done by you feel in life.

You want fairness in the world? How much will you give up to have that?

Ultimately, you're asking people who are part of the global elite to join a campaign to do away with the advantages they have.

Alternately, you're asking people to join a campaign to implement a still-unfair-but-better-for-me movement....which kind of justifies the existing system when you think about it.



*The figures are taken from memory, but aren't orders of magnitude out.

Kama

This is quite helpful for perspective on ones position within the world system of inequality...

Global Rich List

bonkey

Having played with that a bit...

It puts an annual income of 37,780 EUR at being in the top 1%.
THat would be just shy of €3150 a month.

silverharp

it doesnt come down to pure resources either, the idea that any problems could be solved if every global citizen was given a debit card with their share of the global production of every conceivable natural resource would not work. Although resources are scarce , it still takes the network of culture education and expertise and accrued capital to convert these resources into useful goods and services.

drunken_munky52

efla wrote: »

The technological optimist debate has long been put to rest in ecological economics by Georgescu-Roegen. Limits to growth aside, it is still irresponsible guesswork - entropy, etc.

My advocation for technology is to have it create the benefits while still respecting the environment. In fact, technologies have already been created to protect the the earth, but as I have said, ecological damage has a root cause, which needs to be either discontinued or simply the process for doing the same thing needs to be approached differently. This planet does not belong to us only, the animals own it as much as we do. We should be respectful of them in this light.

efla wrote: »

Like all similar totalitarian inclined, you seem to have conferred the moral authority upon yourself, at the expense of the (impossibly) class conscious leftovers.

You have misunderstood my metaphor. I am not for a second stating any totalitarian control aspirations. I mearly say that the nay sayers of such a proposal would have to come to a realisation that the system we live in today is flawed in so many ways. In fact, I think that all of the sceptics would jump on the band wagon without any sort of intervention, once they see the freedom of the soul that can be achieved.

efla wrote: »

How will the transition work in practice? Is there any historical or contemporary mode of production to draw comparison?

All empires crumble do they not? The system we are in right now is basically the corporate empire of profit, and like all empires will fall someday too. And when it does, we need to be ready... but why wait? The ZM proposes a new approach, with the fundamentals been based on equality, abuandance and vorsprung durch technik. Nothing like this has ever been tried before on the scale proposed... I strongly believe it is worth a shot at testing... it would be not even a blink in the eye of human evolution, and anyway we are at such a level of consciousness that anticipation of tripping blocks can be easily worked out.

Kama wrote: »

The God-machines will require more resources to produce, more energy, which is an input that is already scarce.

Earth recieves more energy from the sun in 1 hour that the entire planet uses in 1 year. And thats just from solar. Wind energy is in such abundance that if it were fully harnessed in a handful of wind resource rich location around Europe, it would be enough to power the entire continent. But one energy source trumps them all, "Geothermal". That is something you can look up yourself.

Kama wrote: »

Specifically, the abolition of money leaves no way of determining how scarce goods are allocated, or on what basis the UberCray supercomputers make this need-based allocation. Who gets to program the machines (assuming the lack of a perfectly benevolent post-Singularity AGI), again, is a political question. Who gets what, when, and why?

Computers could constantly monitor the Earth's resources and percisely allocate to a region that needs X amount of Y material. You do know I am not on about a barter system when I talk about resource based economics in this sense?

Kama wrote: »

Ironically, for an ecological-egalitarian, the proposed system looks more like a distrorted fantasy of the present day than a future; a cybernetic technocratic domination of the world, moving faster towards ecological breakdown, with a Cornucopian faith that 'tech' will necessarily provide the efficient-and-therefore-right 'solution' to the nagging problem of humanity.

Why did a stone age man decide he needed a wheel one day? He did it becuase he had a problem moving a load from A to B. The wheel is the most important piece of technology ever. There lies the issue. Technology solves problems not politicians. Politicians are not engineers. Politicians are not scientists.

bonkey wrote: »

While its convenient to point fingers at the ultra-rich and say that they should lose loads in order to build a fairer world

I never pointed my fingers at anyone to be honest. But if you want me the point one, I will do so... not a the millionaire up on the hill from you... not the hard working airline boss with his self obsessed ego... not even the Bill Gates of this world or the house or Saud... you guessed it... the central banking system of the world. Becuase at the end of he day, in todays world we the people including our little sawdust millionaires are nothing more than paid slaves and work for the banks. Its about time we rejected our secret masters.

bonkey wrote: »

Ultimately, you're asking people who are part of the global elite to join a campaign to do away with the advantages they have.

Alternately, you're asking people to join a campaign to implement a still-unfair-but-better-for-me movement....which kind of justifies the existing system when you think about it.

You are reffering to materialsim and social class, which are no benefits to mankind over all. Its all well and do when we watch movies on our 52" plasma TVs and where nice designer clothes, paying a fortune to use them in the process, not thinking about the person in the swetshop who made the product for you in the most uncomfortable condtions and getting less than 0.1% of the money you paid for the finished product.

People need to realise that consumerism is built on the broken spirits of millions of the poor.

Its time to tip to scales.

silverharp wrote: »

it doesnt come down to pure resources either, the idea that any problems could be solved if every global citizen was given a debit card with their share of the global production of every conceivable natural resource would not work. Although resources are scarce , it still takes the network of culture education and expertise and accrued capital to convert these resources into useful goods and services.

Resources are not scarce... deliberately misleading information is put out there to create the illusion of scarcity as this drives up the cost of everything... what about the resources that have been wasted into products we dont even need... they could be easily recycled , hence the material can be used for X practical purpose.

Kama

In fact, I think that all of the sceptics would jump on the band wagon without any sort of intervention, once they see the freedom of the soul that can be achieved.

Well you've lost the atheists for starters. The question remains, how would you respond to atavistic remnants of the 'old society' who have not reached the appropriate level of socio-spiritual development?

Earth recieves more energy from the sun in 1 hour that the entire planet uses in 1 year. And thats just from solar. Wind energy is in such abundance that if it were fully harnessed in a handful of wind resource rich location around Europe, it would be enough to power the entire continent. But one energy source trumps them all, "Geothermal". That is something you can look up yourself.

For the first part, there is a difference between 'receives' and 'can capture'. The there's the small matter of the EROI, which I recommend you look up, the energy necessary as an investment to produce further energy, and then the conversion efficiency. Then there's the issue of getting power from generation sites to consumption sites. 'Deep' geothermal isn't developed yet; easy for Iceland, hard for other places. The main mistake you are making here continuously is assuming that total physical potential can be easily converted into an available source of power. Science and technology are constrained by physical limits; its not just that we want something and science provides, automatically. This is called a wish-fulfilment fantasy.

Computers could constantly monitor the Earth's resources and percisely allocate to a region that needs X amount of Y material. You do know I am not on about a barter system when I talk about resource based economics in this sense?

Again, how are these computers programmed, and who programs them? What models are used, what algorithm do they apply, to solve the allocation problem? If you lack an answer, don't be surprised if you are not taken seriously when you say 'computers'. How you determine the 'X' that is needed is a non-trivial question.

Why did a stone age man decide he needed a wheel one day? He did it becuase he had a problem moving a load from A to B. The wheel is the most important piece of technology ever. There lies the issue. Technology solves problems not politicians. Politicians are not engineers. Politicians are not scientists.

Um, Stone Age civilizations didn't invent the wheel, for starters, despite what the Flintstones may tell you; earliest record is the Mesopotamians. Question: are you a scientist? Do you think technology ever creates problems?

Resources are not scarce... deliberately misleading information is put out there to create the illusion of scarcity as this drives up the cost of everything... what about the resources that have been wasted into products we dont even need... they could be easily recycled , hence the material can be used for X practical purpose.

There's a question which I find interesting hidden within this. Resources are scarce, in the sense that we are not making more oil anytime soon (unless Venter cracks it with the algae). The subtler point would be how do our economic processes thrive on and reproduce scarcity as a means to create value; is this what you mean?

Resources being wasted does not mean they are not scarce; you implicitly accept the concept of 'cost' as being 'driven up', so you already accept a concept of scarcity...that or you still have residual System-programming...

Scarce, btw, to an economist, means limited or finite, rather than just 'not a lot of', and is compared to the (theorized) infinity of human desire. So we could have a huge pile of shiny gold, but gold is still technically a scarce good, because there is no shortage of people who want gold. Now, if no one wanted gold, because they had had the 'spiritual conversion', the demand side would change, and we might say gold was no longer truly scarce. This demand-side approach has been pushed by the ecological side, or 'living lightly'.

But to claim that we have infinite resources on earth is just incoherent. Physics is not your friend. Start with thermodynamics, and go from there, would be my advice.

To be truly post-scarcity in the manner you describe would require free energy, aka over-unity. Crack that, and you may be taken seriously - or shot by an oil company, or bought out by Steorn...

Kama

There's a view, related to ecological economics, of what a 'resource-based economy' would look like. The word 'resource' comes from the Latin resurgere, meaning 'to rise again'. Its the origin of the Enlish word 'resurgent'.

In this view, resources are replenishing sources. By not drawing down more than the 'interest rate' at which they grow, an economy based off these flows can be growing continuously off the proceeds. However, we tend not to do this; in some cases (oil) the time for it to replenish dwarfs our societies likely lifespan, while in others (forestry, fishing) we have tended to 'mine' the resource into extinction. Which is clearly suboptimal longterm, though it makes a lot of sense in short-term rationalities.

I'm quite in favour of a resource-based economy in this sense, btw. Increasing our share of solar capture with dense, diversified ecologies, and drawing down a sustainable level of this resource base, above the restock rate.

But as the man said, if you want to get to Galway, I wouldn't start from here...

drunken_munky52

Kama wrote: »

Well you've lost the atheists for starters. The question remains, how would you respond to atavistic remnants of the 'old society' who have not reached the appropriate level of socio-spiritual development?

Why would I lose the atheists? And I suppose the nay sayers of our thwarted era, would just have to live with it. You could easily use the model of the fake "Democracy" we live in today... when a majority get in the minority are not heard... that does not mean I would have them sent to death camps... the incentives of inclusion would be presented, along with obvious education on the new world would reinforce its simple objective. If they still refuse, well then I cant force someone to eat if they are on hunger strike... what would you propose? Maybe put them on an island so they can live in lalaland for the rest of their lives... or would you atleast try to get them with the program?

Kama wrote: »

-For the first part, there is a difference between 'receives' and 'can capture'.
- Then there's the issue of getting power from generation sites to consumption sites.
- 'Deep' geothermal isn't developed yet; easy for Iceland, hard for other places.
-The main mistake you are making here continuously is assuming that total physical potential can be easily converted into an available source of power. Science and technology are constrained by physical limits; its not just that we want something and science provides, automatically. This is called a wish-fulfilment fantasy.

Lets forget about the monetary issues which falsely discourage such ideas... this fake barrier needs to be ignored if we are to have the abundance of energy I speak of.
You focus on the current limitations of the proposals, yet I note you don't say they are impossible. As time moves on, new breakthroughs will be made in finding ways to solve the issues you state. It is inevitable. Look at how fast we have come in 20 years of the computing world. Nothing is impossible.
Science and technology are constrained by their own discovered laws... what person has ever proved that they are constrained by physical limits?
Wish-fulfilment fantasy? "They" said we wouldn't put a man on the moon. What do "they" know?

Kama wrote: »

Again, how are these computers programmed, and who programs them?

I will give you one simple answer to all of the questions asked on this paragraph, and that is with replacing the Dail seats with the brainiest minds in the world, solutions can be found... again, nothing is theoretically impossible, all is has to do is obey the laws of science... not the physical constraints.

Kama wrote: »

Um, Stone Age civilizations didn't invent the wheel, for starters, despite what the Flintstones may tell you; earliest record is the Mesopotamians. Question: are you a scientist? Do you think technology ever creates problems?

Bash my metaphor why dont you... I dont care who built it, fact of the matter is that it was built out of nessecity to overcome a major obstacle to an idea in a mans mind. Yes I am a scientist and yes technology is raped for mindless acts everyday... most notably the military.... an utter waste of talent and resources on ways to kill people... another aim of the ZM is to rid the world of this outdated institution.

Two things you can use technology for are
1. Constructive use
2. Destructive use

When creating constructive use technologies you may end up having some destructive run off... technology therefore should be applied in minmising destructive run off... AKA technology for creating technology.

Q: Do you drive a car? If so, why do you drive a car? What are the advantages of driving a car over walking or on horse back?

Kama wrote: »

we are not making more oil anytime soon

Yes, the oil age is coming to a end, just like the stone age, iron age etc. Why so serious? I would not lose sleep over it, we are on the verge of a green revolution. As for the polymer industries, they will go into recycling the polymer materials locked up in the computer you use right now
, or the rubber on the tires of your car. Good riddance to oil anyway, it has served us well in 200 years at an enormous cost... the most ecological damaging resource ever used by humans in history.

Kama wrote: »

Resources being wasted does not mean they are not scarce; you implicitly accept the concept of 'cost' as being 'driven up', so you already accept a concept of scarcity.

Let me use the diamond industry as an example.

Diamonds are not as rare as many people think. They are certainly not the rarest of gemstones, that honor goes to rubies, but they are the hardest. The illusion of diamond scarcity and its instant association with the concepts of romance and affluence can be traced back to a successful meeting in New York between Harry Oppenheimer and the president of N.W. Ayer & Son, Gerold M. Lauck, in September 1938.

Diamond discovery's are akin to finding new oild fields every year, yet the industry keeps a tight lid on this fact. Thus keeping the sense of power and status with this "rock" in check.

Kama wrote: »

But to claim that we have infinite resources on earth is just incoherent. Physics is not your friend. Start with thermodynamics, and go from there, would be my advice.

Sorry who are you? What do you know about these fields?

Kama wrote: »

Crack that, and you may be taken seriously - or shot by an oil company, or bought out by Steorn...

Steorn's ORBO device needs to be taken seriously, and like I told you earlier, its only a matter of time before a practical application needs to be found for it, but its not impossible. They have proved that a net gain in energy can be achived by put some in... which ironically defys the statement that energy cant be created or destroyed, which they have not denied. They say that the energy gained from the experiment is coming from somewhere they can't explain yet.... this is up to the mathematicians, who may be able to prove the existance of dark matter.

Kama

I'm really not sure that you actually want to discuss any of the ideas you are bringing up, especially as they relate to political theory. Boards.ie is a site for discussion, and this subforum is for political theory. If you don't want to discuss the ideas, you are in the wrong place.


Shortshort answers, in no particular order:


Thermodynamics is about as real as anything gets.
Steorn failed. No one ever produced a working perpetual motion machine.

Computers have programmers.
And computers make mistakes.

Science isn't a fairy-godmother.
We got to the moon by understanding physical constraints, not pretending they would go away.

'Brainy' people don't necessarily make good decisions.
Scientists don't necessarily make good managers.

I walk or take a bike whenever possible.
I used ride a horse when younger, but I live in the city now.

There is a rich elite in the world.
You are a part of it.

Politics is a process by which groups make decisions.
If you want to produce a better world, you will need a better politics.

silverharp

Kama wrote: »

There's a view, related to ecological economics, of what a 'resource-based economy' would look like. The word 'resource' comes from the Latin resurgere, meaning 'to rise again'. Its the origin of the Enlish word 'resurgent'.

In this view, resources are replenishing sources. By not drawing down more than the 'interest rate' at which they grow, an economy based off these flows can be growing continuously off the proceeds. However, we tend not to do this; in some cases (oil) the time for it to replenish dwarfs our societies likely lifespan, while in others (forestry, fishing) we have tended to 'mine' the resource into extinction. Which is clearly suboptimal longterm, though it makes a lot of sense in short-term rationalities.

I'm quite in favour of a resource-based economy in this sense, btw. Increasing our share of solar capture with dense, diversified ecologies, and drawing down a sustainable level of this resource base, above the restock rate.

But as the man said, if you want to get to Galway, I wouldn't start from here...

its not an area I've read up on but it appears a very rigid approach when we live in a dynamic system. I think it was Jevons that wrote about "peak coal" in the 19thC , had the proposed system been implemented then there would have been an attempt to limit economic growth which in itself may have delayed the adoption of oil.

drunken_munky52

Kama wrote: »

I'm really not sure that you actually want to discuss any of the ideas you are bringing up, especially as they relate to political theory. Boards.ie is a site for discussion, and this subforum is for political theory. If you don't want to discuss the ideas, you are in the wrong place..

I opened this thread with the topic aimed at considering a world without politics, carrying the message of the Ziegeist movement into it. My entire ideolgy has been changed by ZM.

I have discussed my points... you try to dismiss them... I respond with counter statements, thats a discussion/debate. Now becuase you have led me off the track on the discussion with your questioning, you say I am going off the topic?

Kama wrote: »

Thermodynamics is about as real as anything gets.
Steorn failed. No one ever produced a working perpetual motion machine.

What has thermodynamics, a specific branch of physics got to do with anything raised? Steorn have not failed, last time I checked they are still operating and their CEO spoke at a seminar I attended a few weeks ago. And the statement that "No one ever produced a working perpetual motion machine" is totally false... it has been developed, now an application needs to be found for it. Steorn are going commercially live with ORBO later this year... it is a certainty that human ingenuity will prevail in the face of the sceptics, weather you say it will or not.

Kama wrote: »

Computers have programmers.
And computers make mistakes.

Computers can make thousands of decisions every second... politicians make decisions at a far slower rate and still manage to make a balls of the outcome! Fact is, computer's are far superior when it comes to management... ever heard of SCADA?

Kama wrote: »

Science isn't a fairy-godmother.
We got to the moon by understanding physical constraints, not pretending they would go away.

Yet we accomplished it is the face of an enormous technical challanges, becuase our explorer instincts have driven us time and time again to overcome these challanges.

Kama wrote: »

'Brainy' people don't necessarily make good decisions.
Scientists don't necessarily make good managers..

Do you know the difference between a fact and a truth? Science bases its findings on facts... politics bases its findings on truths (i.e. beliefs and ideology)

Kama wrote: »

I walk or take a bike whenever possible.
I used ride a horse when younger, but I live in the city now.

Technology is your bike that gets you to work faster than you would on your feet... so it overcomes a problem. Technology is your freind and you should have unquestioned faith in it.

Kama wrote: »

There is a rich elite in the world.
You are a part of it.

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krisnamurti

Kama wrote: »

Politics is a process by which groups make decisions.
If you want to produce a better world, you will need a better politics.

Politics has repeatedly failed throughout history to solve problems... you do not have to look far for evidence of this. Its a talking shop, where so called "laws" are created in order to superglue fractures caused by polotics in the first place. It needs to be rejected and a new system which allows human evolution to make its journey, without been hindered by the viruses of religion and politics holding it back from rapid understanding and actions.

bonkey

It still seems somewhat misleading to me that the opening "pitch" for the argument seems to suggest to teh reader that they are amongst those who are hard done by in the current way of things.

In reality, the message underlying it all is that we are part of the problem and should change our lives (by joining this movement) so that others can gain from our largesse. However, the more I read the OP, the more I'm convinced that I'm supposed to feel a victim who would be joining this movement so that I gain from it....and not just some spiritual feeling of being a better person, but that the inequality in the world could change to my advantage.

This, I have to be honest, makes me immediately suspicious. If this movement is really about a better, fairer world...why do I have the feeling that its using somrthing less then full honesty and openness to convince me?

Nonetheless, that doesn't mean the idea is withoug merit...

What has thermodynamics, a specific branch of physics got to do with anything raised? Steorn have not failed, last time I checked they are still operating and their CEO spoke at a seminar I attended a few weeks ago. And the statement that "No one ever produced a working perpetual motion machine" is totally false... it has been developed, now an application needs to be found for it. Steorn are going commercially live with ORBO later this year... it is a certainty that human ingenuity will prevail in the face of the sceptics, weather you say it will or not.

Thermodynamics is the theory which is required to be fundamentally wrong for someone to have made a functioning perpetual motion machine. That's what it has to do with it.

Not only that, but the assertion that such a machine has been built is not demonstrably true. No-one has built such a machine and had it independantly verified, which is one of the key benchmarks set in teh modern world for accepting that things are what they seem to be.

Steorn refused to give out details of their technology for independant verification. They picked a group of scientists to perform said verification, requiring them to work behind closed doors, gagged by NDAs. That group unanimously concluded that Steorn failed to demonstrate its claims to them. Steorn also tried to give a public demonstration of their technology. This failed completely.

So what we have at this point is a claim from a company who have failed at every step to have any form of varification. They've never demonstrated it publically, nor managed to have it validated behind closed doors....let alone independantly.

The only argument against the notion of failure is that they insist they still have a working technology, and will bring it to market. Even if you believe that, I'd suggest you ask yourself one question: If they can neither validate nor demonstrate their technology, how can they possibly know that it works.

Fact is, computer's are far superior when it comes to management

Computers are suited to certain tasks...tasks we can define well enough to pre-determine the correct strategies for handling a certain amount of management. In order for a computer to be able to manage something efficiently, we need an efficient model which we want the computer to implement.

We don't have the models you want....nor the means to enforce compliance with them.

Do you know the difference between a fact and a truth? Science bases its findings on facts... politics bases its findings on truths (i.e. beliefs and ideology)

Don't you find it ironic that you're trying to knock belief and ideology, when they're the two pillars that underly the basis of ZM?
Similarly, you draw attention to the notion of science being based on fact, but defend Steorn who have supplied no facts (in the scientific sense) and yet seek to have us believe that core principles of physics are grossly incorrect.

Politics has repeatedly failed throughout history to solve problems...

People have failed to solve problems. THe problem does not lie with politics, but rather with the reason that politics exists - that being human nature.

Ultimately, ZM coudl succeed as a concept if human nature significantly changed. If, of course, human nature significantly changed, there would be no need for ZM, as the current system could also succeed as a concept.

Ostrom

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

I opened this thread with the topic aimed at considering a world without politics, carrying the message of the Ziegeist movement into it. My entire ideolgy has been changed by ZM.

I have discussed my points... you try to dismiss them... I respond with counter statements, thats a discussion/debate. Now becuase you have led me off the track on the discussion with your questioning, you say I am going off the topic?.

Your proposed alternatives are political by nature - suggesting an alternative process of resource allocation is to suggest a new political regime.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

What has thermodynamics, a specific branch of physics got to do with anything raised? Steorn have not failed, last time I checked they are still operating and their CEO spoke at a seminar I attended a few weeks ago. And the statement that "No one ever produced a working perpetual motion machine" is totally false... it has been developed, now an application needs to be found for it. Steorn are going commercially live with ORBO later this year... it is a certainty that human ingenuity will prevail in the face of the sceptics, weather you say it will or not.

I think you lost most of us with the Steorn comment. Did you not refer to yourself as a scientist a few posts above? The application of theormodynamic principles in ecological economics is the most significant development in economic thought of the 20th century (I'm sure some will disagree). Roegen challenged Solow's growth model on the basis of material input; systems theorists from Parsons to Lovelock have placed entropy and eventual heat death at the centre of prudent pessimist debates (e.g. limits to growth onwards). Thermodynamics has everything to do with your proposal - they are intrinsic characteristics of any system.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Computers can make thousands of decisions every second... politicians make decisions at a far slower rate and still manage to make a balls of the outcome! Fact is, computer's are far superior when it comes to management... ever heard of SCADA?

The instructions will come from a particular social and political context - you dont seem to realise that a value-free independent machine is impossible.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Do you know the difference between a fact and a truth? Science bases its findings on facts... politics bases its findings on truths (i.e. beliefs and ideology)

Scientific study and the definition of validity is also subject to the same ideological convention

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Technology is your bike that gets you to work faster than you would on your feet... so it overcomes a problem. Technology is your freind and you should have unquestioned faith in it.

No, we shouldn't

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Politics has repeatedly failed throughout history to solve problems... you do not have to look far for evidence of this. Its a talking shop, where so called "laws" are created in order to superglue fractures caused by polotics in the first place. It needs to be rejected and a new system which allows human evolution to make its journey, without been hindered by the viruses of religion and politics holding it back from rapid understanding and actions.

This 'new system' will be a political system - am I correct in saying that you dont consider it as such because the objective value-free machines will makes all of our decisions?

drunken_munky52

This possibility is, of course, very difficult for most humans to consider, for we have been conditioned by society to think that crime, corruption and dishonesty is "the way it is" and that there will always be people who want to abuse, hurt and take advantage of others.

The reality is that we live in a society that produces Scarcity. The consequence of this scarcity is that human beings must behave in self preserving ways, even if it means they have to cheat and steal in order to get what they want.

This simple reality has been grossly overlooked and today people primitively think that competition, greed and corruption are "hardwired" elements of human behavior and, in turn, we must have prisons, police and hence a hierarchy of differential control in order for society to deal with these "tendencies". This is totally illogical and false.

The bottom line is that in order to change things for the better fundamentally, you must begin to address root causes.

It is time to stop the patchwork. It is time to begin a new social approach which is updated to present day knowledge. Sadly, society today is still largely based on outmoded, superstitious dispositions and resolutions.

It is also important to point out that there are no utopias or endings. All evidence points to perpetual change on all levels.

Since people's identities become associated with the doctrines of a Country, Religion or Business ethic, it often becomes very difficult for a person to change, for his or her identity has become combined with the ideologies which have been imposed upon them.

We must break this cycle, for it paralyses our growth not only as individuals, but as a society.

silverharp

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

This possibility is, of course, very difficult for most humans to consider, for we have been conditioned by society to think that crime, corruption and dishonesty is "the way it is" and that there will always be people who want to abuse, hurt and take advantage of others...........

wasnt communism built on the idea of creating a new man? Any system of thought that requires people to cast off their old way of thinking in such a fundamental way is either a cult or will require a year 0. Your points about scarcity make no sense, have you any links to readable material to expand on some of thes thoughts?

drunken_munky52

silverharp wrote: »

wasnt communism built on the idea of creating a new man? Any system of thought that requires people to cast off their old way of thinking in such a fundamental way is either a cult or will require a year 0.

Once we understand that the integrity of our personal existences are directly related to the integrity of the earth, life and all other people, we then have our path predefined for us. In turn, once we realise that it is science, technology, hence human creativity are what create progress in our lives, we are then able to recognise what our true priorities are for social, personal growth and progress.

It is not the right of any person to tell another what to believe, for no human has a full understanding of anything. However, if we pay attention to the natural processes of life, we then see how we can align with nature and thus our path becomes more clear.

"We must become the change we want to see in the world".
-Mohandas Gandhi.

silverharp wrote: »

Your points about scarcity make no sense, have you any links to readable material to expand on some of thes thoughts?

If NATO had utilized the money that it spent on military systems for the last 40 years and put it toward developing clean sources of energy, the world would be a far better, safer, and cleaner place for all of humankind, with less scarcity of the energy we don't have today.

bonkey

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

If NATO had utilized the money that it spent on military systems for the last 40 years and put it toward developing clean sources of energy, the world would be a far better, safer, and cleaner place for all of humankind, with less scarcity of the energy we don't have today.

Alternately, someone else would have taken advantage of the fact that NATO didn't exist, and would have taken over the defenceless nations which had no spending on defence...and the money would have been spent funding the lifestyle of our new overlords and masters.

Of course...that wouldn't have happened, right? No-one would ever take advantage of rich, defenceless nations.

Kama

Since I'm feeling this all go one way, and the cry of 'but what would this mean, in anything other than random aspirational sloganism?' has been heard across the hills and valleys....

Apropos of Resource Economies, without the Orbo:

We are farmer scientists - working to develop a world class research center for decentralization technologies using open source permaculture and technology to work together for providing basic needs and self replicating the entire operation at the cost of scrap metal. We seek societal transformation through interconnected self-sufficient villages and homes.


Our business model focuses on

1. Open source
2. Lifetime design
3. Resource based economy creation
4. Distributive economics - Open Business Model (OBM)

I'm quite for engineers and permaculturalists doing things with little capital;
an NGO I'm involved with works on slightly similar lines: 'how can we effect change in outcomes, assuming near-zero conventional resources?'

silverharp

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

If NATO had utilized the money that it spent on military systems for the last 40 years and put it toward developing clean sources of energy, the world would be a far better, safer, and cleaner place for all of humankind, with less scarcity of the energy we don't have today.

I'm far from wanting to defend the status quo as the balance between the individual and the state is too lopsided in favour of the state. The average US citizen would not write a cheque to fund the US military to the extent it does when the gov has unlimited borrowing and taxing ability. The average would also not pay to enforce laws against victimless crimes (eg drug laws)
However there will always be scarcity, so I believe you are overplaying your hand , I argue from the point of view that surpluses should be largely left with the people who produce them as they are in a better place to deploy them then any central commitee ever will.

drunken_munky52

bonkey wrote: »

Alternately, someone else would have taken advantage of the fact that NATO didn't exist, and would have taken over the defenceless nations which had no spending on defence...and the money would have been spent funding the lifestyle of our new overlords and masters.

Of course...that wouldn't have happened, right? No-one would ever take advantage of rich, defenceless nations.

OK. I will go again, as I was just trying to put things in prespective before I have to read you possibly saying that conflict is hamun nature. I will make that statement you quoted again, with one word changed.

If we had utilized the money that it spent on military systems for the last 40 years and put it toward developing clean sources of energy, the world would be a far better, safer, and cleaner place for all of humankind, with less scarcity of the energy we don't have today.

BTW, human beings are not good or bad... they are running, forever changing compositions of the life experiences that influence them. The "quality" of a human being (if there was such a thing) is directly related to the upbringing and thus belief systems they have been conditioned into.

silverharp wrote: »

I'm far from wanting to defend the status quo as the balance between the individual and the state is too lopsided in favour of the state. The average US citizen would not write a cheque to fund the US military to the extent it does when the gov has unlimited borrowing and taxing ability. The average would also not pay to enforce laws against victimless crimes (eg drug laws)
However there will always be scarcity, so I believe you are overplaying your hand , I argue from the point of view that surpluses should be largely left with the people who produce them as they are in a better place to deploy them then any central commitee ever will.

Social problems result from scarcity. 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 towards a future in which all resources are accepted as common heritage for all human kind.

Our problems cannot be solved in a society based on money, waste, and human exploitation. Today, money is used to regulate the economy for the benefit of the few who control the financial wealth of nations. Unless the underlying causes of planned obsolescence, environmental neglect, and outrageous military expenditures are addressed, we are bound to fail. Treaties, blockades, boycotts, and the like used in the past have not worked.

Kama

drunken_munky wrote:

BTW, human beings are not good or bad... they are running, forever changing compositions of the life experiences that influence them. The "quality" of a human being (if there was such a thing) is directly related to the upbringing and thus belief systems they have been conditioned into.

Assuming this as true:

How do we instil 'correct' belief systems into people?
Before this, how can we initially determine which belief systems are correct?

How can we tell if someones Belief System is...BS?
And how can we know if our own Belief System contains BS?

If we wish to end war, crime, hunger, poverty, territorial disputes, and nationalism, we must work towards a future in which all resources are accepted as common heritage for all human kind.

I tend to agree, to a point. But I remain without any idea how ZM believes this essentially political aim can be achieved, besides the appeal to the the cybernetic deus ex machina. Who gets what, when, and how, remains a politically-loaded question.

The idea of management of Commons is quite topical, with the Bank of Sweden prize being shared by Elinor Ostrom on how successful common-pool resources are managed as institutions, what rules evolve and work.

But a non-tragic Commons does need to be managed, precisely because of being a scarce, rivalrous resource. And this management, invariably, means some form of politics, whether consensual or violently Clausewitzian.


There are two problems ZM needs an answer to.
Both are coordination problems:

One political - how do you organise people and their preferences, if not through a form of politics?

One economic - how are goods to be allocated, or how can 'need' be objectively determined?

drunken_munky52

Kama wrote: »

Assuming this as true:

How do we instil 'correct' belief systems into people?
Before this, how can we initially determine which belief systems are correct?

How can we tell if someones Belief System is...BS?
And how can we know if our own Belief System contains BS?

As we realise that knowledge and hence our institutions are always evolving, we see that any belief system which claims to "know" anything, without allowing for dispute, is a failed perspective. Religion, with its foundation in faith, is the king of this distortion, as it claims to know something definitively about the most complex and elusive origins of human kind, and this simply is not possible in an emergent universe.

That being said, it is then realised that equally as dangerous as the establishment power structures, are the people who have been conditioned to completely accept the static understandings put forth by these systems... therefore becoming: "Self Appointed Guardians of the Status Quo". This applies to every system, especially political.

If we as individuals pay attention to the natural processes of life, we then see how we can align with nature and thus our path becomes more clear.

Kama wrote: »

I tend to agree, to a point. But I remain without any idea how ZM believes this essentially political aim can be achieved, besides the appeal to the the cybernetic deus ex machina. Who gets what, when, and how, remains a politically-loaded question.

The idea of management of Commons is quite topical, with the Bank of Sweden prize being shared by Elinor Ostrom on how successful common-pool resources are managed as institutions, what rules evolve and work.

But a non-tragic Commons does need to be managed, precisely because of being a scarce, rivalrous resource. And this management, invariably, means some form of politics, whether consensual or violently Clausewitzian.


There are two problems ZM needs an answer to.
Both are coordination problems:

One political - how do you organise people and their preferences, if not through a form of politics?

One economic - how are goods to be allocated, or how can 'need' be objectively determined?

Example: many people are worried about population growth on the planet, while very spooky comments by despotic figures like Henry Kissinger claim that some kind of "reduction" is needed. This is, of course, very scary. However, the real question remains: Is population growth really that bad? The answer is that from a scientific perspective the earth can handle many, many times more people if need be, once high technology is harnessed. 70% of our planet is water and cities in the sea are the next step. In turn, education about life operations will inform people as to the ramifications of their reproductive interests and population growth will naturally slow as people begin to realise how they are related to the planet and its carrying capacity.

Kama

drunken_munky wrote:

As we realise that knowledge and hence our institutions are always evolving, we see that any belief system which claims to "know" anything, without allowing for dispute, is a failed perspective.

Does not the ZM make several such claims? Minimally, going from what you said, 'human nature' as emergent from conditioning (rather than innate predispositions such as selfishness), the certainty and trust placed science and technology as a source of 'truth', and a quasi-spiritual view of personal moral development as 'aligning with nature', and a somewhat-totalitarian response to any questions around what happens to those who don't 'get with it'.

How can we determine when someone has authentically 'aligned with nature', and gained the privileged epistemological position?

That being said, it is then realised that equally as dangerous as the establishment power structures, are the people who have been conditioned to completely accept the static understandings put forth by these systems... therefore becoming: "Self Appointed Guardians of the Status Quo". This applies to every system, especially political.

Again, how is ZM different? We have a quite static and inflexible perspective, indoctrinated or conditioned by a System, in this case the Zeitgeist Movement.

Example

Your example does not appear to try to answer either of the core questions, btw. On what basis is allocation to be made? What decisionmaking structures does/should the ZM have?

drunken_munky52

Kama wrote: »

Does not the ZM make several such claims? Minimally, going from what you said, 'human nature' as emergent from conditioning (rather than innate predispositions such as selfishness), the certainty and trust placed science and technology as a source of 'truth', and a quasi-spiritual view of personal moral development as 'aligning with nature', and a somewhat-totalitarian response to any questions around what happens to those who don't 'get with it'.

How can we determine when someone has authentically 'aligned with nature', and gained the privileged epistemological position?

Again, how is ZM different? We have a quite static and inflexible perspective, indoctrinated or conditioned by a System, in this case the Zeitgeist Movement.

What are you talking about? Youv'e completely misunderstood or are trying to misconstrue my earlier posts.

Kama wrote: »

Your example does not appear to try to answer either of the core questions, btw. On what basis is allocation to be made? What decisionmaking structures does/should the ZM have?

The ZM is not a political movement. It does not recognise nations, governments, races, religions, creeds or class. ZM's understandings conclude that these are false, outdated distinctions which are far from positive factors for true collective human growth and potential. Their basis is in power division and stratification, not unity and equality, which is ZM's goal. While it is important to understand that everything in life is a natural progression, we must also acknowledge the reality that the human species has the ability to drastically slow and paralyze progress, through social structures which are out of date, dogmatic, and hence out of line with nature itself. The world you see today, full of war, corruption, elitism, pollution, poverty, epidemic disease, human rights abuses, inequality and crime is the result of this paralysis.

This movement is about awareness, in avocation of a fluid evolutionary progress, both personal, social, technological and spiritual. It recognises that the human species is on a natural path for unification, derived from a communal acknowledgment of fundamental and near empirical understandings of how nature works and how we as humans fit into/are a part of this universal unfolding we call life. While this path does exist, it is unfortunately hindered and not recognised by the great majority of humans, who continue to perpetuate outdated and hence degenerative modes of conduct and association. It is this intellectual irrelevancy which the ZM hopes to overcome through education and social action.

The goal is to revise our world society in accord with present day knowledge on all levels, not only creating awareness of social and technological possibilities many have been conditioned to think impossible or against "human nature", but also to provide a means to overcome those elements in society which perpetuate these outdated systems.

Ostrom

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

What are you talking about? Youv'e completely misunderstood or are trying to misconstrue my earlier posts.

You have yet to justify the superiority of your understanding - specifically how your movement proposes to overcome the 'conditioned individual' - through what abstract though process/conceputalisation of 'the individual' does the ZM base its alternative proposal on? At every turn you revert to the classical leftist 'false consciousness' justification for implementing your own particular solution. My own discomfort with the ZM is your baseless acceptance of science as providing some sort of objctive 'state of nature' regulatory apparatus. The establishing of a benchmark measure of 'natural alignment' would be a political process in itself.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Religion, with its foundation in faith, is the king of this distortion, as it claims to know something definitively about the most complex and elusive origins of human kind, and this simply is not possible in an emergent universe

How is this any different from your baseless insistence on future technological dependence? It (ZM) has all the hallmarks of doctrine - the original sin of accumulation and environmental risk displacement, the false consciousness of corrupt morals, the immanent judgement and salvation through faith, the deification of the technological saviour...

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

The ZM is not a political movement.

Again, yes it is.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

While it is important to understand that everything in life is a natural progression, we must also acknowledge the reality that the human species has the ability to drastically slow and paralyze progress, through social structures which are out of date, dogmatic, and hence out of line with nature itself.

How do you propose to implement resource-based economies without an administrative apparatus? What about the nature-imposed necessity of production? We are, after all, human.

drunken_munky52

efla wrote: »

You have yet to justify the superiority of your understanding - specifically how your movement proposes to overcome the 'conditioned individual' - through what abstract though process/conceputalisation of 'the individual' does the ZM base its alternative proposal on?

The crisis, is not in economic, environmental or social terms... these are merely symptoms... the real crisis is in the state of conciousness. Hence it is up to us as individuals to realise this and adapt, which our current social structures do not allow.

Tradition becomes our security, and when the mind is secure it is in decay.
Jiddu Krishnamurti

efla wrote: »

Again, yes it is.

Again, The Zeitgeist Movement, is NOT a Political Movement. ZM does not recognise Nations, Races, Religions, Governments, Legal, Religious or Corporate Institutions, Social or Financial Class or Power of Position or the Monetary System.

po·lit·i·cal

1. Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.
2. Relating to, involving, or characteristic of politics or politicians: "Calling a meeting is a political act in itself"
3. Relating to or involving acts regarded as damaging to a government or state: political crimes.
4. Interested or active in politics: I'm not a very political person.
5. Having or influenced by partisan interests: The court should never become a political institution.
6. Based on or motivated by partisan or self-serving objectives: a purely political decision.

ad·vo·ca·cy

The act of pleading or arguing in favor of something, such as a cause, idea, or policy; active support.

efla wrote: »

How do you propose to implement resource-based economies without an administrative apparatus? What about the nature-imposed necessity of production? We are, after all, human.

Have you come across the Venus Project yet? The ZM brought this plan to my attention.

The Venus Project proposes plans for social change that work toward a peaceful and sustainable global civilization. It outlines an alternative social design where human rights are not just paper proclamations, but a way of life. The Venus Project has a vision of what the future can be if we apply what we already know to achieve a sustainable world civilization. It calls for a scientific redesign of our culture in which war, poverty, hunger, debt, and unnecessary human, suffering are viewed as not only avoidable, but unacceptable. Anything less will result in a disastrous continuation of the problems inherent in today's world.

Communism being similar to a resource-based economy or The Venus Project is an erroneous concept. Communism has money, banks, armies, police, prisons, charismatic personalities, social stratification, and is managed by appointed leaders. The Venus Project's aim is to surpass the need for the use of money. Police, prisons and the military would no longer be necessary when goods, services, healthcare, and education are available to all people. The Venus Project would replace politicians with a cybernated society in which all of the physical entities are managed and operated by computerized systems. The only region that the computers do not operate or manage is the surveillance of human beings. This would be completely unnecessary and considered socially offensive. A society that uses technology without human concern has no basis of survival. Communism has no blueprint or methodology to carry out their ideals and along with capitalism, fascism, and socialism, will ultimately go down in history as failed social experiments.

Kama

Lets take Wiki's definition instead:

Politics is a process by which groups of people make decisions. The term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, but politics has been observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic and religious institutions. It consists of "social relations involving authority or power"

Or take Lasswell's classic definition: 'who gets what, when, and how'.

We can observe 'politics' in chimpanzees, oppressive hierarchical 'pecking orders' in chickens, 'democratic' decision-making in bees voting, and so on. Politics happens, to paraphrase Jesus, 'whenever 3 or more of ye gather together'. Families have politics, flatmates have politics, and dollars to donuts, there's politics within the ZM. I have yet to find a human community of any description without its own politics, whether ecocommune, office, or interweb forum.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and all that.
How, in the ZM, are decisions made?

Have you come across the Venus Project yet? The ZM brought this plan to my attention.

The Venus Project has a vision, but seems very light on the actual how. Its also not exactly new; see for instance the ideas of Buckmister Fuller. However, while Fuller advocated ephemeralization, being keenly aware of resource limitations and the competitive struggles emergent from them, the ZM claims that all scarcity is a product of an oppressive economic system, and all that is necessary is to have faith in technology, and stop using money. Blind, unquestioning faith. Hence, ZM appears to an observer to be a profoundly religious movement, based around the worship of technology. Utopian technocratic totalitarianism, to be blunt, in a salvific Gnostic vein.

Science is not meant to be a faith-based enterprise, its meant to be evidence-based. And creating a peaceful and sustainable human civilization is a political-economic objective. ZM seems in peculiar denial about this.

The only region that the computers do not operate or manage is the surveillance of human beings. This would be completely unnecessary and considered socially offensive. A society that uses technology without human concern has no basis of survival.

Would the cybernated computers consider it socially offensive? Since they are the locus of all power, I can only presume so. If not, how can humans communicate their abhorrence to their cybernate overlords?

In this dystopia, political power rests with those who control the machines. Since surveillance (aka transparency) is to be outlawed, they shall not be monitored. Essentially, they are to be the new elite; unobserved, and totally powerful.

To repeat, who programs the computers?
I'm still not getting anything close to an answer on this.



To close with Bucky again:

The most important fact about Spaceship Earth: an instruction manual didn't come with it.

ZM seems to be assuming the Manual exists, and is uncontroversial.
It's anything but.

drunken_munky52

Kama wrote: »

Lets take Wiki's definition instead:

I notice that the Wikipedia Page on politics needs to be touched up, not a very clear source of information. Any way, the I see nothing in this definition that relates to how the ZM advocates its message. You failed to come back on me with an obscure definition of advocacy.

Kama wrote: »

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and all that.
How, in the ZM, are decisions made?

Through the humane application of Science and Technology to social design and decision-making, we have the means to transform our tribalistic, scarcity driven, corruption filled environment into something exceedingly more organized, balanced, humane, sustainable and productive. To do so, we have to understand who we are, where we are, what we have, what we want, and how we are going to obtain our goals.

Kama wrote: »

Utopian technocratic totalitarianism, to be blunt, in a salvific Gnostic vein.

There are NO utopias or endings. All evidence points to perpetual change on all levels. Realisation by realisation, one step at a time. Not at all blunt. You have a image in your head of all this suddenly been anviled on the world... you are way off the mark.

Kama wrote: »

Would the cybernated computers consider it socially offensive? Since they are the locus of all power, I can only presume so. If not, how can humans communicate their abhorrence to their cybernate overlords? .

Here you are just been irrational.

Kama wrote: »

In this dystopia, political power rests with those who control the machines. Since surveillance (aka transparency) is to be outlawed, they shall not be monitored. Essentially, they are to be the new elite; unobserved, and totally powerful.

To repeat, who programs the computers?
I'm still not getting anything close to an answer on this.

Obviously, computers are not going to become AI and start some Terminator style war with the human species, that notion died in me many moons ago during my formative years.

Can I ask you, is this what you saying will happen?

As for the programmers, these would be college graduates in computer science, software development etc. Where do you think they would come from?

Technicians would obviously be needed in a supervisory role. They would step up to the mark, not because they are driven by profit, they would do it becuase they want to. Once their belief system is based on the emergent and symbiotic relationships of the universe, power and control become redundant desires.

Ostrom

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

The crisis, is not in economic, environmental or social terms... these are merely symptoms... the real crisis is in the state of conciousness. Hence it is up to us as individuals to realise this and adapt, which our current social structures do not allow.

Tradition becomes our security, and when the mind is secure it is in decay.
Jiddu Krishnamurti

Again, how can you justify your appointment as bearer of moral authority and objective interpretator of human nature/state of consciousness? I understand what you are saying - you do not need to repeat this, I am asking upon what basis (relating to Kama's direction to epistemology), do you accord the superiority of your interpretation?

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Again, The Zeitgeist Movement, is NOT a Political Movement. ZM does not recognise Nations, Races, Religions, Governments, Legal, Religious or Corporate Institutions, Social or Financial Class or Power of Position or the Monetary System.

po·lit·i·cal

1. Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.
2. Relating to, involving, or characteristic of politics or politicians: "Calling a meeting is a political act in itself"
3. Relating to or involving acts regarded as damaging to a government or state: political crimes.
4. Interested or active in politics: I'm not a very political person.
5. Having or influenced by partisan interests: The court should never become a political institution.
6. Based on or motivated by partisan or self-serving objectives: a purely political decision.

ad·vo·ca·cy

The act of pleading or arguing in favor of something, such as a cause, idea, or policy; active support.

Ok, lets put it differently - can we agree that as an advocacy group, the long term objectives of the ZM are to remove 'old' political power structures and replace them with resource-based allocation according to human need? Is that correct?

In engineering (which, in all honesty, is what you will inevitably be drawn to by locating your revolutionary action at the level of individual and collective consciousness) this new social order, you will be manufacturing a form of consent qualitatively different to the 'old form'.

Fast-forward for a moment and imagine your movement has been successful - (on the basis of a political process of revolutionary consent validation - which, if you are to remove former political structures, it will be) - how can you characterise this process of mass mobilisation as non-political? (definitions five and six above).

Assume your interpretation of fundamanetal human nature is incorrect and 'dissent' emerges - will you maintain order and consensus by force? To argue otherwise is to reassert the movements position as sole interpreters of human nature, which is impossible - the classification of 'dissent' as dissent in itself will involve relativist assumptions.

How (god machines aside) will your new social order deal with education? Ageing populations? Sanitation? Healthcare? How can you suggest that such inevitable concerns will not generate political structures in some form?

Or would it be more accurate to say that you conceptualise 'the political' as merely those existing governance structures whom you identify as corrupt?

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Have you come across the Venus Project yet? The ZM brought this plan to my attention.

The Venus Project proposes plans for social change that work toward a peaceful and sustainable global civilization. It outlines an alternative social design where human rights are not just paper proclamations, but a way of life. The Venus Project has a vision of what the future can be if we apply what we already know to achieve a sustainable world civilization. It calls for a scientific redesign of our culture in which war, poverty, hunger, debt, and unnecessary human, suffering are viewed as not only avoidable, but unacceptable. Anything less will result in a disastrous continuation of the problems inherent in today's world.

Is this project based on abstract assumptions of human nature (i.e. that the essential core of humanity, occluded by the corruption of the conventional political structure will become perfectly self-regulatory in the absence of said), or on concrete research?

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

The Venus Project would replace politicians with a cybernated society in which all of the physical entities are managed and operated by computerized systems. The only region that the computers do not operate or manage is the surveillance of human beings. This would be completely unnecessary and considered socially offensive. A society that uses technology without human concern has no basis of survival.

Ok - you referred to yourself as a scientist a number of posts back - surely you must have some empirical justification for this? Does it not seem like an awful lot of faith to place in an unknown quantity with 'human civilization' at stake? You must have sounder justification for the above beyond abstract notions of human nature and their intrinsic compatibility with artificial regulation?

Following through on your logic - the ZM society will be one without food, correct? Millenia of archaeological, and more recently anthropological evidence shows us that the only inevitability of 'humanity' is the nature-inposed necessity of cultivation. Co-operative cultivation in the absence of capitalised agriculture is a long term necessity of all human societies (displacement of necessity through global trade aside). Either you propose to organise a centralised system of food production or revert to individuated peasant production - either way you will fast encounter the problem of co-operative labour (a political structure no less, irrespective of scale) - interestingly, the formation of an administrative apparatus at community level appears also to be an inevitability of human society.

Will you enforce non-politicisation of production, or allow for the emergence of mirco-political structures? Either way you encounter the problem of collective organisation, and inevitably, the political.

drunken_munky52

efla wrote: »

Again, how can you justify your appointment as bearer of moral authority and objective interpretator of human nature/state of consciousness? I understand what you are saying - you do not need to repeat this, I am asking upon what basis (relating to Kama's direction to epistemology), do you accord the superiority of your interpretation?

I am not going to justify myself as bearer of moral authority and objective interpretator of human nature/state of consciousness, nor would I. It is not the right of any person to tell another what to believe, for no human has a full understanding of anything.

I argue that there is a moral Zeitgeist that continually evolves in society. For thousands of years, religion has had a moral monopoly on spirituality. For the scientific method has allowed us insight into natural process, so we can better understand how we 'fit' into this life system as a whole.

This could be a new 'spiritual' awakening.

efla wrote: »

Ok, lets put it differently - can we agree that as an advocacy group, the long term objectives of the ZM are to remove 'old' political power structures and replace them with resource-based allocation according to human need? Is that correct?

Even if the most ethical people in the world were elected to political office, without sufficient resources, we would still have the same problems. What is needed is the intelligent management of Earth's resources for the benefit of all and protection of the environment. So yes, the failed political structures we have now must be wound down slowly overtime.

efla wrote: »

Fast-forward for a moment and imagine your movement has been successful - (on the basis of a political process of revolutionary consent validation - which, if you are to remove former political structures, it will be) - how can you characterise this process of mass mobilisation as non-political? (definitions five and six above).

As to the need for government, only during the transition from a monetary based society to a cybernated high tech resource based economy of common heritage would it be necessary to utilise the services of systems analysts, engineers, computer programmers, etc. They will not dictate the policies or have any more advantage than other people. Their job will be to carry out the restoration of the environment to near natural conditions as possible on land and in the sea. They will also economically layout the most efficient way to manage transportation, agriculture, city planning, and production. This too is always in the process of modification and updating to fit the needs of an ever changing civilization. There are no final frontiers.

efla wrote: »

Assume your interpretation of fundamanetal human nature is incorrect and 'dissent' emerges - will you maintain order and consensus by force? To argue otherwise is to reassert the movements position as sole interpreters of human nature, which is impossible - the classification of 'dissent' as dissent in itself will involve relativist assumptions.

Aberrant behavior is produced by aberrant social conditions, malnutrition, minimum wage, lack of motivation, poor role models, and lack of relevant education. People always reflect the influences of environment. Even the wealthiest people today suffer from intellectual poverty.

For the dissent that could emerge, well it would be no where near as likely to be on the scale of the traditional protests and riots we see today. For lets say 99% of crime eliminated due to changes in social foundations, the remaining 1% of cases should be studied carefully to fully understand why it happens and thus make further changes. For the very isolated incidents, would likely be caused by mentally ill people, they would be put into hospital and treated like we treat a mental patient today.

efla wrote: »

How (god machines aside) will your new social order deal with education? Ageing populations? Sanitation? Healthcare? How can you suggest that such inevitable concerns will not generate political structures in some form?

Education should be more than the presentation of many facts to be memorised by students. The first aspects of an innovative education should have an emphasis on communication and the ability to resolve and avoid conflicts. This can be accomplished though an exposure to general semantics.

As for your "inevitable concerns", the effective and economic utilisation of resources, the necessary cybernated and computerised technology would be applied to ensure a higher standard of living for everyone.

efla wrote: »

Or would it be more accurate to say that you conceptualise 'the political' as merely those existing governance structures whom you identify as corrupt?

In a global resource based economy, decisions would not be based on local politics but on a holistic problem solving approach.

efla wrote: »

Is this project based on abstract assumptions of human nature (i.e. that the essential core of humanity, occluded by the corruption of the conventional political structure will become perfectly self-regulatory in the absence of said), or on concrete research?

What do you think?

efla wrote: »

Ok - you referred to yourself as a scientist a number of posts back - surely you must have some empirical justification for this? Does it not seem like an awful lot of faith to place in an unknown quantity with 'human civilization' at stake? You must have sounder justification for the above beyond abstract notions of human nature and their intrinsic compatibility with artificial regulation?

This system is not a perfect conception... its just alot better than what we have now. If we continue down the path of boom, bust, boom, bust we will not only be paralyzed spiritually until the system fails, but when the system does eventually fail, we will be totally unprepared for the consequences; a near extinction of the human species. But humanity will rebound from this, as it has always done. The nomads that roam the raped shell of the Earth will slowly rebuild civilisation as the planet heals itself. But why do this to humanity, when it is totally avoidable? A revolution in the human awakening needs to happen now, if we are to stop this trainwreck from occuring... the railway track ahead is broken and the driver can see it... he has to call the signal man quick to change the track, otherwise... the train is doomed.

Valmont

*Brain explodes*

bonkey

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

For the scientific method has allowed us insight into natural process, so we can better understand how we 'fit' into this life system as a whole.

This could be a new 'spiritual' awakening.

Science does not tell us how to interpret results. From that perspective, any "spiritual" awakening is based on a (non-scientific) use of scientific knowledge...at which point you're back the same old problem.

Even if the most ethical people in the world were elected to political office, without sufficient resources, we would still have the same problems.

But then how do we build a computer system to solve the problem? If the most ethical people in the world can't correctly define how it shoudl be done, then no-one can define how the computer system should be designed.

Computers are very good at doing exactly what you tell them to.

In terms of doing anything more than that...we're only just-about at the point where a computer can play chess better then a human...and that's just chess. There's no moral decisions...no question of who to let die and who to let live....no question of which individual freedom outweighs which...

Simply put, a computer capable of making such decisions lies in the realm of science fiction.

This system is not a perfect conception... its just alot better than what we have now.

To be honest, it seems to be a lot better purely based on the premise that solutions to age-old problems will be found....not that those solutions are already identified.

In effect, its a utopian ideal without a clear roadmap, considered independantly of those who will (inevitably) seek to play the system to their own advantage and the effects of the (inevitable) feedback look that this creates.

Ostrom

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

I am not going to justify myself as bearer of moral authority and objective interpretator of human nature/state of consciousness, nor would I. It is not the right of any person to tell another what to believe, for no human has a full understanding of anything.

I argue that there is a moral Zeitgeist that continually evolves in society. For thousands of years, religion has had a moral monopoly on spirituality. For the scientific method has allowed us insight into natural process, so we can better understand how we 'fit' into this life system as a whole.

This could be a new 'spiritual' awakening.

By your interpretation of appropriate 'spirituality'

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Even if the most ethical people in the world were elected to political office, without sufficient resources, we would still have the same problems. What is needed is the intelligent management of Earth's resources for the benefit of all and protection of the environment. So yes, the failed political structures we have now must be wound down slowly overtime.

Agreed, but...

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

As to the need for government, only during the transition from a monetary based society to a cybernated high tech resource based economy of common heritage would it be necessary to utilise the services of systems analysts, engineers, computer programmers, etc. They will not dictate the policies or have any more advantage than other people. Their job will be to carry out the restoration of the environment to near natural conditions as possible on land and in the sea. They will also economically layout the most efficient way to manage transportation, agriculture, city planning, and production. This too is always in the process of modification and updating to fit the needs of an ever changing civilization. There are no final frontiers.

To whom will this fall? This is not the end of history - technological development and scientific insight have not distilled the pure essence of truth and order, they are constantly evolving processes inseparable from the human agent and their broader collective (political) networks.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Aberrant behavior is produced by aberrant social conditions, malnutrition, minimum wage, lack of motivation, poor role models, and lack of relevant education. People always reflect the influences of environment. Even the wealthiest people today suffer from intellectual poverty.

Deviance is a subjective term - this is completely circular, with each response you continue to impose judgement in some form. Can you provide something clearer than 'aberrance'? What will this mean for your new social order? Who decides the threshold and limits of 'aberrance'?

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

For the dissent that could emerge, well it would be no where near as likely to be on the scale of the traditional protests and riots we see today. For lets say 99% of crime eliminated due to changes in social foundations, the remaining 1% of cases should be studied carefully to fully understand why it happens and thus make further changes. For the very isolated incidents, would likely be caused by mentally ill people, they would be put into hospital and treated like we treat a mental patient today.

Aberrance is strictly crime? What about those with alternative political ideals? Would attempted community micro-governance fall within the aberrant remit? How do you propose to complete such study of the remaining 1% without collective action (political)? On what evidence are you basing this?

The last suggestion is more than a little worrying. How should we establish the validity of mental illness diagnoses? A flick through DSM-IV? How were such diagnostic criteria defined? In many cases, such rigorous validity is impossible to establish through conventional biological measurement (hence the need for comprehansive debate and agreement)- will the machines have the answers? Where will they learn what to look for?

What should we do to the kids with ADD?

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

As for your "inevitable concerns", the effective and economic utilisation of resources, the necessary cybernated and computerised technology would be applied to ensure a higher standard of living for everyone.

In a global resource based economy, decisions would not be based on local politics but on a holistic problem solving approach.

If you only reply to one of these questions, please address this - on what empirical evidence are you drawing - specifically the relation between technogovernance (or whatever you are calling it) and positive outcome

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

What do you think?

I'm sorry - I respect that you are arguing your corner, but I think it is complete nonsense

drunken_munky52

bonkey wrote: »

Science does not tell us how to interpret results.

Thats why we have analytical processes in science, so that results can be interpreted and hence a new realisation can just be added to human knowledge ... religion on the other hand blocks all new information in favour of preserving traditional ways of thinking.

I am not saying that spirituality needs to be based solely on science... if you want to believe there is a God, fine... that I can understand... what I do not agree with is that real progress in today's world is been dampened becuase billions of humans have been conditioned into various flawed modes of thinking, which religion is mainly responsible for.

bonkey wrote: »

From that perspective, any "spiritual" awakening is based on a (non-scientific) use of scientific knowledge...at which point you're back the same old problem.

Maybe modern day paganism is the answer, where we worship the Earth and the Sky, think about it... when you see beautiful scenary, you feel a certain energy that is unique to this action... I know I get a sense of awe when I look up at th stars on a clear night... thats the kind of "religion" we should all follow... this connection we feel with nature.

bonkey wrote: »

Computers are very good at doing exactly what you tell them to.

Computers are already replacing workers year on year. For example, the car industry robotic assembly line, the telephone banking system we use, even the postman... etc. Basically in a resource based economy, all mundane jobs would be eliminated along with the monetary system and replaced with automated methods. People would still need to make decisions in a "political" sense, but these decisions would be based on real problem solving focused with the needs of people and the environment in mind.

bonkey wrote: »

In effect, its a utopian ideal without a clear roadmap, considered independantly of those who will (inevitably) seek to play the system to their own advantage and the effects of the (inevitable) feedback look that this creates.

Interesting, seen as a handful of individuals already play the current system to their advantage today. I clearly have already stated that there are no utopias in this idea. Shoot back 500 years we will say... I am on the boards with you and I say "I've got this great idea, its called Communism" and go on to explain everything about it and how I would really like it to happen, you would be rejecting based on your points about how individual aspects of the idea would fail to work... only 400 years later it actually happens.

efla wrote: »

To whom will this fall?

An open source community, where realisations that humans make would be made freely availible to others so their minds can too be updated with this new information, thus opening the doors into new realistions and so on.

efla wrote: »

with each response you continue to impose judgement in some form. Can you provide something clearer than 'aberrance'? What will this mean for your new social order? Who decides the threshold and limits of 'aberrance'?

With each response I give, you continue to ignore every good point I make and squeeze on one word in the paragraph. This is the last time I am going to let you interrogate me. If you have useful counter points, please add them instead of asking your dead end questions.

What would you propose? Keep locking up the drug addict's and joyriders for their crimes born out of social deprevation? There would be far less aberrance in an abundant safe world, therefore there would be plenty of empty prisons one could turn into proper centres of education and rehabilitation.

efla wrote: »

Where will they learn what to look for?

DITO

efla wrote: »

I'm sorry - I respect that you are arguing your corner, but I think it is complete nonsense

By "nonsense" do you mean those of GE who are some of the biggest polluters of the environment and knowingly exposed their workers to carcinogens that caused their deaths, or those that manipulate money for profit without contributing to the well being of people's lives, or those who lend money for an automobile for example and if the person cannot pay off the last payment they do not take a tire and the steering wheel equivalent to the payment, they take the whole car? Or perhaps you may mean judges who put people in jail for life for killing over resources, yet the leaders of nations bomb and kill entire cities and countries for resources and to secure markets and then put statues in parks to honor the ones who carry out this procedure?

There would have to be an awful lot of killing going on if a saner society wanted to rid itself of "unstable" or "aberrant" behavior. No, ZM does not advocate killing anyone. They think that this system is like a cancer on a cat that is eating its host and it will do away with itself in time. The mere march of events of technology will eventually do away with jobs that enable people to buy the goods turned out, and new social designs will have to emerge. They feel that at that time a military dictatorship will most likely occur. The Venus Project would like to introduce the concepts of a resource based economy to the public so they will understand that there are other possible alternatives.

Ostrom

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

An open source community, where realisations that humans make would be made freely availible to others so their minds can too be updated with this new information, thus opening the doors into new realistions and so on.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

With each response I give, you continue to ignore every good point I make and squeeze on one word in the paragraph. This is the last time I am going to let you interrogate me. If you have useful counter points, please add them instead of asking your dead end questions.

I have nothing to counter argue - your justifications for order are unsubstantiated. My responses ask for concrete examples - how would such open source communities operate - do you have anything beyond vague ideal types? A simple no would suffice, as your replies leave little to argue against (as per first reply). I directed you to some current strands in ecological economics that have dealt with the issues you are addressing, and you ignored. I'm sorry, but it is impossible to engage with a theory that remains in abstraction - empirical justification must be introduced at some point (specifically the technology side, which seems to move between open source/independent calculated decision making).

I'm not pressing the point to open a window to show off - I am genuinely concerned with long term environmental outcomes and equitable governance models.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

What would you propose? Keep locking up the drug addict's and joyriders for their crimes born out of social deprevation? There would be far less aberrance in an abundant safe world, therefore there would be plenty of empty prisons one could turn into proper centres of education and rehabilitation.

The problem is not with the outcome - I am in full agreement that the outcome you suggest would no doubt be better. The need for change and reform is not in question - the assumption of workable technological governance and decision making is, and it is to this point I keep returning.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

By "nonsense" do you mean those of GE who are some of the biggest polluters of the environment and knowingly exposed their workers to carcinogens that caused their deaths, or those that manipulate money for profit without contributing to the well being of people's lives, or those who lend money for an automobile for example and if the person cannot pay off the last payment they do not take a tire and the steering wheel equivalent to the payment, they take the whole car? Or perhaps you may mean judges who put people in jail for life for killing over resources, yet the leaders of nations bomb and kill entire cities and countries for resources and to secure markets and then put statues in parks to honor the ones who carry out this procedure?

Again, not the point - and that is quite a connection to make from my comment on the venus project

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

There would have to be an awful lot of killing going on if a saner society wanted to rid itself of "unstable" or "aberrant" behavior. No, ZM does not advocate killing anyone. They think that this system is like a cancer on a cat that is eating its host and it will do away with itself in time. The mere march of events of technology will eventually do away with jobs that enable people to buy the goods turned out, and new social designs will have to emerge. They feel that at that time a military dictatorship will most likely occur. The Venus Project would like to introduce the concepts of a resource based economy to the public so they will understand that there are other possible alternatives.

I'll opt out on this one - I have nothing more to contribute unless you want to debate AI decision making and its justification

bonkey

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Thats why we have analytical processes in science, so that results can be interpreted and hence a new realisation can just be added to human knowledge ... religion on the other hand blocks all new information in favour of preserving traditional ways of thinking.

We're not discussing religion vs. science, though. You're proposing a new way of life, based (at least partly) on some notion that we can apply science to problems such as resource-management.

The point I'm making is that science only tells us how to manage resources within the framework of a value-system that has to be seperately defined. The problem is defining that value-system...not the implementation of it.

Maybe modern day paganism is the answer, where we worship the Earth and the Sky, think about it...

I thought we were discussing an alternative to political systems? Your diatribe against mainstream religion (and support of alternative worship) has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Computers are already replacing workers year on year.

I've never suggested otherwise. The point that you're missing is that the jobs which are being replaced are jobs where we can define a clear and unambiguous process, which can then be automated. Resource-management isn't an unambiguous process. The question of what constitutes fairness in the first place isn't an unambiguous question. We could, arguably, define a computer system which managed resources...but only in accordance to a value-system we had already defined. The problem with today's world is that people don't agree on a common value system. If we could agree on such then our problem would be solved without the need for automated control. Automated control without such a common system is, conversely, meaningless and therefore unobtainable.


quote]People would still need to make decisions in a "political" sense, [/quote]
Exactly.

In the political sense...a human would still need to make the decisions that leaders make today. So what we'd have is a new form of politics, with new leaders, making new decisions.

Given that the root of your argument lies in the decisions made by those in such positions today...it seems that your new system is just a variation of the old. The emperor has no new clothes.

Interesting, seen as a handful of individuals already play the current system to their advantage today.

Thats my point. The flaws in the current system are made apparent by those who play the game to their own advantage. If everyone played fair, and genuinely held the welfare of others as dearly as their own wellbeing, then we wouldn't need a new system. You're proposing a new system, because of these individuals...but the system you're proposing is based on the ideal supposition that such individuals won't be able to effect things....but doesn't explain how that's the case.

I clearly have already stated that there are no utopias in this idea.

You've also presented a system based on ideals, with no acknowledgement of the stresses that the lack of ideal will cause, nor explanation as to how the system will cope with those stresses.

In other words, you claim that the system doesn't assume utopianism, but present a system purely in utopian terms.

Shoot back 500 years we will say... I am on the boards with you and I say "I've got this great idea, its called Communism" and go on to explain everything about it and how I would really like it to happen, you would be rejecting based on your points about how individual aspects of the idea would fail to work... only 400 years later it actually happens.

I'd ask the same questions I'm asking here....to explain how the system would function in the face of those who would exploit it to their own advantage. Looking back on communism rather than forward, its clear to see that this has been a crucial flaw in every major implementation of a system even resembling communism...it has not been fair and eqitable, and the common man has ended up worse off. Why? Primarily because the ideal doesn't square up against the reality, based on stresses and imperfections (aka human nature) which were simply not sufficiently considered

To go back to Churchill, democracy is the worst system of government...except for all others that have been tried from time to time.





An open source community, where realisations that humans make would be made freely availible to others so their minds can too be updated with this new information, thus opening the doors into new realistions and so on.


With each response I give, you continue to ignore every good point I make and squeeze on one word in the paragraph. This is the last time I am going to let you interrogate me. If you have useful counter points, please add them instead of asking your dead end questions.

What would you propose? Keep locking up the drug addict's and joyriders for their crimes born out of social deprevation? There would be far less aberrance in an abundant safe world, therefore there would be plenty of empty prisons one could turn into proper centres of education and rehabilitation.


DITO



By "nonsense" do you mean those of GE who are some of the biggest polluters of the environment and knowingly exposed their workers to carcinogens that caused their deaths, or those that manipulate money for profit without contributing to the well being of people's lives, or those who lend money for an automobile for example and if the person cannot pay off the last payment they do not take a tire and the steering wheel equivalent to the payment, they take the whole car? Or perhaps you may mean judges who put people in jail for life for killing over resources, yet the leaders of nations bomb and kill entire cities and countries for resources and to secure markets and then put statues in parks to honor the ones who carry out this procedure?

There would have to be an awful lot of killing going on if a saner society wanted to rid itself of "unstable" or "aberrant" behavior. No, ZM does not advocate killing anyone. They think that this system is like a cancer on a cat that is eating its host and it will do away with itself in time. The mere march of events of technology will eventually do away with jobs that enable people to buy the goods turned out, and new social designs will have to emerge. They feel that at that time a military dictatorship will most likely occur. The Venus Project would like to introduce the concepts of a resource based economy to the public so they will understand that there are other possible alternatives.[/quote]

drunken_munky52

To Predict It Is Necessary to Know Your History Dani Rodrik

Government and industry will continue to assign more and more responsibility for decision making to intelligent machines. Today's machines handle trillions of bits of information per second, far more than is manageable by any number of industrial or political decision makers. They can also assemble and assign constantly updated information.

The other side of this trend is that so many people will be replaced, thus we will no longer have the purchasing power needed to sustain a monetary based economy that burdens the entire population and government with insurmountable debt.

As the old monetary system begins to displace more and more people by its reliance on automation, these people will cease to respect the authority of industry. The time honored pattern of living in all industrial countries, the balancing of work and family interest, would become impossible to maintain for the majority of people displaced by automation.

As AI develops, machines will be assigned the tasks of complex decision making in industrial, military and governmental affairs. This would not imply a take over by machines. Instead, it would be a gradual transfer of decision making processes to machine intelligence as the next phase of social evolution.

Many people believe that government leaders bring about change with a deep concern for the well being of their citizenry. Nothing could be further from the truth, nor did past shifts in society come about as the results of changes in the schools or the home. All established government systems tend to preserve and uphold their own interests and power base.

The real forces responsible for change have more to do with unforeseen, external events or biosocial pressures that physically alter our environment and established social arrangements: for example, the infusion of machines and processes that replace people and remove their means of making a living, adverse natural conditions of drought, flood, storm, and earthquake, manmade disasters of economic oscillations, or some outside threat of hostile nations.

Kenny DNK

Liberty is a right ...

Love is the law. Do what thou wilt - Problem Solved.

Joycey

Kenny DNK wrote: »

Liberty is a right ...

Love is the law. Do what thou wilt - Problem Solved.

What if my wilt means depriving someone else of their 'liberty'? And what is liberty anyway?

Kenny DNK

Joycey wrote: »

What if my wilt means depriving someone else of their 'liberty'? And what is liberty anyway?

I get the same question the whole time. Then you are breaking the first rule - Love is the law. Taking someones liberty is not "loving". We all know in our hearts what is the moral thing to do in any situation, we know what is right and what is wrong. As long as you dont steal, kill etc, your not really breaking any moral rules..

My point is that we were born onto this earth, as equal as anyone else, and have the same rights as anyone else. To trade, to have a home, to cultivate etc..

What is liberty?? - Check this out. The philosophy of liberty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM

Hope this puts you on the right path and I'd be happy to answer any other questions you have on this

Joycey

Kenny DNK wrote: »

I get the same question the whole time. Then you are breaking the first rule

On what grounds do you hold it to be the first rule?

- Love is the law.

What is love exactly, as you understand it?

In what way is it a law?
- A law of nature, like all matter exerts a force on other matter, like gravity (im not a physicist, hopefully thats something along the lines of what the law of gravity is like), in which case it would be impossible to violate such a law and therefore no impingment of liberty would be possible,
- or a law of human nature, in which case it would be equally inviolable,
- or a law to which all human beings should ideally accord (like the laws in our legal system), in which case Im left with the question: where did this law come from?

We all know in our hearts what is the moral thing to do in any situation

Then why is there a philosophy of ethics which has stretched back a lot further than 2000 years?

we know what is right and what is wrong.

Not 10 minutes ago I was arguing with someone who was saying there is no such thing as morality/right and wrong...

As long as you dont steal, kill etc, your not really breaking any moral rules..

Would you say that there is a difference between my killing someone directly, eg giving them poisoned food, and indirectly, eg witholding food from them till they starve? If not, then the very fact of your spending time reading/replying to this post when you could be out earning money to give to a starving person is an indirect form of murder, and some would say morally wrong.

My point is that we were born onto this earth, as equal as anyone else,

In what sense are we equal? We are not equal in stature, skin pigmentation, name, family history, the aspects of culture we share, the beliefs we hold etc etc.

and have the same rights as anyone else.

Where do these rights come from? What is you justification for holding such a belief?

To trade, to have a home, to cultivate etc..

Why should these rights be held preferable to any other "right" which I may choose to believe in? Surely something like the right to trade should be subordinate to a right to education or to food, if we are to take the whole "rights" discourse as assumed.

I'd be happy to answer any other questions you have on this

Sorry for putting so many down, anybody else who feels that they can answer the questions feel free.