The Zeitgeist Movement... why not?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

No offense, but after you pull a 9-5 in one of those manual labor jobs, it's difficult to imagine it as something people would do as volunteers.

Granted, but again, how many of such works are a by product of the current way to organize a society? Do we really need (as living organisms and to put some examples) canned sodas, candies, or energetic beverages? Somebody invents a necessity and all the sudden you are inadequate because you don't believe it is really a necessity? A marvelous representation of this can be found here:

www.storyofstuff.com

1) Now the millions of people who like fast food can't have it. This translates to every other poor job. In Zeitopia, there's not an actual need for shipping hubs! Ok, now your packages can't go place to place. In Zeitopia, there's not an actual need for factories! Ok, well nothing gets manufactured. You see the problem with this direction.

Seems to be a problem because we imagine we will continue to live in this cities and having the same services forever. Just one question, how did the world functioned when there were no transnationals around? Will the world collapse if suddenly every starbucks closed its doors, if there were no more canned beverages?

2) A McJob is American slang for an undesirable job you take as a more-or-less last resort. Apologies for the ethnocentrism.

Thanks, I got it now. Ok, my point then is that millions of McJobs are not necessary for the survival of our species. Can't we invent new jobs? Can't we invent machines to do the remaining really unpleasant/dangerous jobs? Remember we are not dealing with a hippie community, throwing away technology.

Whats more, what about those groups of people that live without any technology, how can they manage to do all their unpleasant jobs? Amish and Mennonites, to my knowledge, have long survived and are living proofs of communes working... based on that, why on earth would it be impossible, a priori, to establish a successful colony that is based on science and technology?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

For someone who is just "asking questions", you seem to have convinced yourself about the superiority of the ZM (and you have no idea if I am in debt).

So tell me, how would you run China under Zeitgeist principals?

As I have said before, I'm using the ZM as an excuse for this thread, much easier to point to something that it is already circulating than to express my ideas from scratch.

That said, yes, I'm asking questions. People in here apparently assumes (a priory) that something like the ZM will simply not work. So I'm asking, why? Historical commune failures seem to be, so far, the strongest points. Some others argue that people would not move without having an incentive like money. Some others that even when you accept that you can be prone to do interesting things without being paid for it (assuming your biological and cultural necessities are well covered) people will still object to do any McJob, and this is how far we have reached so far.

Now, it is not YOU who is in debt, EVERY MEMBER of this society is permanently in debt, you don't have the right to live because you have born, you owe everything your body needs to keep yourself alive. This is how this society works.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

People are not forced to do anything. They can go live in a jungle and hunt monkeys. You want the benefits of modern society, you work for it.

No they can't. They are forced to work because they are permanently in debt. This is slavery, pure and simple.

Was that suppose to be an actual answer?
What has this has anything to do with taxes? I'm talking about work.

Poor analogy. Public services are public goods paid for by the hardwork of an entire society. People have to work for it. I as well as society benefit from public services as much as the "freeloaders". Try again.

It is not a poor analogy. Think again. How many people do you personally know that does not actually pay taxes? Society doesn't pay taxes, just individuals, and some other individuals get all the services for free because they have never paid a dime in taxes. Simply as that. Next time you see somebody who doesn't pay taxes you will see someone getting something for free, well not exactly as you are paying for the services they are enjoying. And you don't seem to be very upset about it.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
This is not a failure of "free markets". This is a failure of financial regulation and an overheated real estate market and improper lending. The current financial crisis will pass, just like all the others.

Er hello?, the free markets theory IS a failure! If they need regulation they are no longer free. Current crisis will pass, undoubtedly, but it will be seen historically as the fall of the last 20th Century ideology.

Relevance? So what do you want to do with crops that are "perfectly nice" but cannot compete?

What about feeding people? The only thing that stands between that food and the people who desperately needs it is the ideology behind the system, not a physical, mechanical or natural limitation.

 

[paximperium]

Granted, but again, how many of such works are a by product of the current way to organize a society? Do we really need (as living organisms and to put some examples) canned sodas, candies, or energetic beverages? Somebody invents a necessity and all the sudden you are inadequate because you don't believe it is really a necessity? A marvelous representation of this can be found here:

What makes YOU the decider of what is necessary?
I consider a cup of coffee necessary. I consider my computer a necessity. Who's going to grow and build these things for fun?
What if 10000 people want a computer but only 1 hobby computer builder?

Seems to be a problem because we imagine we will continue to live in this cities and having the same services forever. Just one question, how did the world functioned when there were no transnationals around?

Great, another strawman. Well, since the first "transnationals" are apparently the merchants who traveled the Silk Road, I'm going to assume you mean modern corporations which has zero bearing on the original question but I'll play.

The world would function as more isolated from one another with less exchange of ideas and travel. Trade, industry and manufacturing will be hampered and less efficient...but that's a fantasy world.

Will the world collapse if suddenly every starbucks closed its doors, if there were no more canned beverages?

Man, your love of strawmen are rather sad.

Thanks, I got it now. Ok, my point then is that millions of McJobs are not necessary for the survival of our species. Can't we invent new jobs? Can't we invent machines to do the remaining really unpleasant/dangerous jobs? Remember we are not dealing with a hippie community, throwing away technology.

Now, we're talking. One day we get to a point where we may be able to develop technology which will do all the menial jobs leaving all of humanity to live as fat leisurely slobs in hover chairs until we are saved by a little robot called Wall-E. That is a many centuries away and sounds absurdly boring.

Whats more, what about those groups of people that live without any technology, how can they manage to do all their unpleasant jobs?

Because they have to.

Amish and Mennonites, to my knowledge, have long survived and are living proofs of communes working...

Self selecting communities work but people still work. What do these communes do with the the undesirables?

based on that, why on earth would it be impossible, a priori, to establish a successful colony that is based on science and technology?

It's called the modern world.

 

[paximperium]

No they can't. They are forced to work because they are permanently in debt. This is slavery, pure and simple.

Pure and simple to whom? What's stopping people from going off into a jungle and living there?

It is not a poor analogy. Think again. How many people do you personally know that does not actually pay taxes? Society doesn't pay taxes, just individuals, and some other individuals get all the services for free because they have never paid a dime in taxes. Simply as that. Next time you see somebody who doesn't pay taxes you will see someone getting something for free, well not exactly as you are paying for the services they are enjoying. And you don't seem to be very upset about it.

How do you know I'm not upset about it?
How do you know that I detest drunks who don't work and collect disability benefits? As I've mentioned, stop projecting.
Is your entire argument an argument to how appealing it is?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Good for you. If you already have sufficient assets to support yourself you ought to be happy. But assets are property, as is human capital. So you are in favour of property ownership aren't you? If not, consider giviing away your assets, and/or rent their wealth-generation out for free...

First, what constitutes "a property" depends on consensual meanings. Properties are cultural concepts. The colony of ants in your backyard own their nest?

I don't think you have said how you would support yourself in a "world without money". Never mind how everyone else would. Perhaps you could?

Then you have not grasped the concept. You do not have to support yourself in a world with no monetary interchange. Every people contributes to the well being of the whole society. In a way, this happens already in our culture, but the inadequacies that arise because of the use of money are to big to ignore. Again (and conveniently nobody has answered this), why should a football player should have the right to have a better standard of life than a scientist looking for a vaccine?

 

[paximperium]

Er hello?, the free markets theory IS a failure! If they need regulation they are no longer free. Current crisis will pass, undoubtedly, but it will be seen historically as the fall of the last 20th Century ideology.

Good point.
The world economy is has never been a "free market" economy. It is a capitalist market economy. It is far from a collapse. Your point?

What about feeding people?

In what way is uncompetitive foods superior in feeding people compared to competitive foods?

The only thing that stands between that food and the people who desperately needs it is the ideology behind the system, not a physical, mechanical or natural limitation.

No. Uncompetitive food is uncompetitive specifically because of an uncompetitive "system, physical, mechanical or natural limitation".

Why don't you humor me and give me one example of a "perfectly fine" food that could feed people but is uncompetitive?

 

[quixotecoyote]

<snip> Somebody invents a necessity and all the sudden you are inadequate because you don't believe it is really a necessity? A marvelous representation of this can be found here:

<snip>

Whats more, what about those groups of people that live without any technology, how can they manage to do all their unpleasant jobs? Amish and Mennonites, to my knowledge, have long survived and are living proofs of communes working... based on that, why on earth would it be impossible, a priori, to establish a successful colony that is based on science and technology?

Well, not everyone wants to live like the Amish and the Mennonites. This is demonstrated by the fact that most people with the option don't live like the Amish or Mennonites.

You also are stuck on the trivialities such as soda and Starbucks. While I object to your proposed society on the grounds that you're happy to prevent people from having things you designate unnecessary, that's only the tip of the iceberg. Manufacturing, shipping, infrastructure growth/maintenance, waste disposal, transportation, and lots of the service sector are jobs are as annoying and undesirable as Starbucks or McDonalds. People do that work because there's a direct incentive to do it. Sure you can wave a magic wand and say technology will make all the unpleasant jobs obsolete, but if we get to that point, we'll have moved past most of the problems your proposal is trying to solve, anyway.

 

[Francesca R]

First, what constitutes "a property" depends on consensual meanings. Properties are cultural concepts. The colony of ants in your backyard own their nest?

Are you acknowledging that you are in favour of property ownership? Because you are. With respect, kindly stop talking about ants

Then you have not grasped the concept. You do not have to support yourself in a world with no monetary interchange. Every people contributes to the well being of the whole society.

Who is going to support you and why will they do so (in whose interest?). Please do not obfuscate these questions--they are straight-forward and direct. Else, I fear readers will conclude that you do not actually have answers. Thanks.

In a way, this happens already in our culture, but the inadequacies that arise because of the use of money are to big to ignore.

See my point about a transferable medium of exchange making it easier and increasing choice. Please cite the "inadequacy" and explain why defeating price discovery and hampering specialisation and gains from trade (the things that allow you presently to do what you like the most and earn income from that) marks anything other than a significant degradation to the system currently in use almost everywhere.

 

[Francesca R]

Also, are you withdrawing your claim to argue that "the best incentives are related to gaining recognition, respect and love"? I see no argument yet about this. This is the third (and last, for me) time of asking. Otherwise I guess I will assume this claim is withdrawn

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Why don't you humor me and give me one example of a "perfectly fine" food that could feed people but is uncompetitive?

I'm lost. What do you mean by "competitive"? I was talking about a simple concept. Think about this, if you can, like if we were dealing with an organization problem, just using your logical abilities. A determinate country produces enough food to feed every inhabitant, yet some of the people are starving. How can this be? Easy, the distribution process is the problem, not the availability of food.

 

[quarky]

it sure gets argumenty around here.

I have some faith, i guess, that we clever humans will come up with some new systems; beyond capitalism. Growth of debt is not a sound way to generate wealth.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Well, not everyone wants to live like the Amish and the Mennonites. This is demonstrated by the fact that most people with the option don't live like the Amish or Mennonites.

True. I just bring them to the equation because they clearly demonstrate that you can create a successful commune.

Manufacturing, shipping, infrastructure growth/maintenance, waste disposal, transportation, and lots of the service sector are jobs are as annoying and undesirable as Starbucks or McDonalds. People do that work because there's a direct incentive to do it. Sure you can wave a magic wand and say technology will make all the unpleasant jobs obsolete, but if we get to that point, we'll have moved past most of the problems your proposal is trying to solve, anyway.

Ok, let me try to solve those issues. It could be arranged that if you do not work you don't have access to certain goods. This is, just because you are alive you are entitled to education, house, food and health care, but this doesn't mean you could have access to tv sets, computers, videogames or other amenities. In this way we can keep the external motivations. And an important difference to the current system is that it doesn't matter what you can do or choose to do, you just need to do it to access those amenities. You don't deserve more or less by working in waste disposal than if you are an actor.

 

[lionking]

True. I just bring them to the equation because they clearly demonstrate that you can create a successful commune.



Ok, let me try to solve those issues. It could be arranged that if you do not work you don't have access to certain goods. This is, just because you are alive you are entitled to education, house, food and health care, but this doesn't mean you could have access to tv sets, computers, videogames or other amenities. In this way we can keep the external motivations. And an important difference to the current system is that it doesn't matter what you can do or choose to do, you just need to do it to access those amenities. You don't deserve more or less by working in waste disposal than if you are an actor.

But how many people would be satisfied with the basics? You can get education, housing, food and health care in a prison (and TVs, computers, books and gymnasiums as well), and it doesn't stop prison breaks.

You might be satisfied with the basics, but very few others are.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Are you acknowledging that you are in favour of property ownership? Because you are. With respect, kindly stop talking about ants

I believe my point is clear. Care to address the conceptual part step by step? And what about the ants, do they own their nest? or not?

Who is going to support you and why will they do so (in whose interest?). Please do not obfuscate these questions--they are straight-forward and direct. Else, I fear readers will conclude that you do not actually have answers. Thanks.

Every member of the community supports other members, it is a reciprocal system. We all need each others, exactly like what happens in this society, but with important changes of course. Regarding our "audience" (this is ourselves I guess), mm I have expressed since the beginning that I was asking questions, I do not claim to have any of this sorted out. Ok? I'm just curious about why it is not possible to believe that something like the ZM would work.

See my point about a transferable medium of exchange making it easier and increasing choice. Please cite the "inadequacy" and explain why defeating price discovery and hampering specialisation and gains from trade (the things that allow you presently to do what you like the most and earn income from that) marks anything other than a significant degradation to the system currently in use almost everywhere.

Key problem. Why on earth do we need to exchange our work for anything else? Let me tell you what is this it is a dogma! exactly like the dogma about that you are the owner of some things. Both are mental constructs, ideas on our minds, concepts that belong to our mental universe but that do not have an ontological existence on their own. And if we can accept that they are not real outside human circles then, maybe, we can figure out that we can invent other concepts and live by a different set of rules.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Also, are you withdrawing your claim to argue that "the best incentives are related to gaining recognition, respect and love"? I see no argument yet about this. This is the third (and last, for me) time of asking. Otherwise I guess I will assume this claim is withdrawn

Not only the best, the only ones. As I said, money is useless unless you exchange it for something else. You do not work to earn money, you work to earn respect, admiration, recognition, love and such kind of things. Sadly, some believe that if they have enough money they can buy such things, only to learn that only to an extent, and only from some people.

Have you by any chance, watch a tv program in which Gates and Buffet return to College?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

But how many people would be satisfied with the basics? You can get education, housing, food and health care in a prison (and TVs, computers, books and gymnasiums as well), and it doesn't stop prison breaks.

You might be satisfied with the basics, but very few others are.

No I am not, I was merely pointing to a way to solve the problem. Of course I believe we should be able to get A LOT MORE than the basics. Furthermore, than not only a selected minority should be able to get it. But this society can't even provide such basics to anyone. As I have said, you are permanently in debt just because you happen to be alive. And which percentage in this society can access the premium stuff? Gates said once that he become the richiest man on earth selling their products to merely 5% of the world population... interesting number.

 

[quixotecoyote]

True. I just bring them to the equation because they clearly demonstrate that you can create a successful commune.

If of course you're willing to live like them, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the Mennonites are largely integrated into the larger economy. They used to repair houses in the town I went to college in. Even the Amish are fairly tied in, selling from craft store and shopping at Wal-Mart. Socially they may be separate, but this is an economic issue.

Ok, let me try to solve those issues. It could be arranged that if you do not work you don't have access to certain goods. This is, just because you are alive you are entitled to education, house, food and health care, but this doesn't mean you could have access to tv sets, computers, videogames or other amenities. In this way we can keep the external motivations.

With you here. This is, AFAIK, a similar mindset to most first world nations.

And an important difference to the current system is that it doesn't matter what you can do or choose to do, you just need to do it to access those amenities. You don't deserve more or less by working in waste disposal than if you are an actor.

When the fun jobs give the same benefits as the crappy ones (eta: ) and anyone can do whatever they like, the crappy ones don't get done. Now you need a method to get people to shovel **** instead of being a famous object of mass adoration.

As an aside, I'm actually enjoying exploring the topic with you. I don't think it's possible at all, but I get that you're trying to come up with ideas to make it work.

 

[paximperium]

it sure gets argumenty around here.

I have some faith, i guess, that we clever humans will come up with some new systems; beyond capitalism. Growth of debt is not a sound way to generate wealth.

And since capitalism and debt are two different issues, you can have your non-sequitur back.