Woah... I've been linked. I think that means I need to update, revise, and add to my stuff so far. I guess I need to get back to my essaying and researching again (I've mostly been tied up with the elections and with my normal personal studies).
Nope, an skeptic is one who doubts. Critical thinkers are the ones who choose the evidence instead of "on air" beliefs. Now, it is interesting that you can't see how a society would work without money.
Question, does EVERY human action is impulsed or rewarded by money interchange? If not... you would be forced to accept that there are other incentives or reasons to actually DO things.
And again... (putting another example) how is it possible that something like Open Source Software exists? It would be impossible if you really believe that people would do nothing if there is no money involved.
Bodhi (can I just call you Bodhi, or do you prefer BDZ, or is your full name preferable?): I can understand what you say regarding one who is 'skeptic', but where you and I may disagree is on the terms and usage of the word in reference to this conversation. What the people here who are using the term 'skeptic' as a pronoun are doing is talking about someone who is far more than simply skeptical, but is also ardent in examining as much as they possibly can with as much critical thinking as they are capable. Naturally, this is going to lead to different overall conclusions about the nature of the world and the universe (in the descriptive sense), and what things might be better served if they were changed (in the prescriptive sense). That much is a given. However, where these different points of view will tend to converge is not always going to be in the conclusion, but most definitely in the methodology. It's because of this similarity of methodology these different views are considered those of 'skeptics' as the language used by many posters here (and many people elsewhere). So, while your question on definition is noted, I think it's best that you understand the context of the language being used so that unnecessary semantics don't ensue that are of the "no true scotsman" type of argument. If you can accept the context to which some are using that language I'm sure it will help the rest of the conversation along nicely.
I would like it noted (by you), however, that I'm not one of the people who use the term 'skeptic' like that. I recognize it because it's useful to have honest discourse here, but my own opinions on the usage differ slightly from many here on that. Still, I'd strongly suggest you keep open to the idea of context, because it will help you to understand what people mean when they use the linguistic shortcut of 'skeptic' in their posts.
I also wanted to point to a flaw in your example of Open Source Software. You see, despite what the model of OSS seems to imply ("free as in beer") the actual meaning of the movement is still structured in gains or advantage. That doesn't diminish OSS as a movement or a business model, though, because it's still founded in a very reasonable and viable idea that is very similar to 'grass roots' political campaigning or community organization. There is still a hierarchy and there's still a marketplace, but the directions that marketplace may move aren't always going to be as linear as their proprietary alternatives. That layout can be to the benefit and the detriment of both models (OSS versus CSS), but in the end the levels to which it may be are going to be determined by demand (or "what people want") and management (or "how well things are run"). Open Source does not imply an absence of money, but instead moves the exchange points from the actual executable code over to the service and support functions. This is very similar to the current state of the world economy, where there has been significant shift from manufacturing of goods as profit toward the ability to provide services as a means to maintaining a mutually beneficial relationship. Open Source exemplifies this type of shift because it heavily relies not on the supply of product but on its support. Open Source has been successful specifically because it
is profitable, and even traditionally closed source companies (like Microsoft) have recognized this and offer their own contributions to Open Source (while retaining their flagship closed source products).
But more to the meat of your question on the matter: it isn't that every human action is determined by profit, it's that (on the whole) most human actions
are determined by benefit. This might not seem to hold true until you consider the fact that not everyone has the same idea of what constitutes benefit, and practically everyone's definition of it is different to some degree. Even people who have very similar definitions will still be able to find areas where they don't agree, and to be honest that's just human nature, the way we are. The skepticism you're seeing here has to do with the general doubt that any such movement is going to not only be able to have people agree on what benefits the most, but to remain in agreement on what things benefit the most on a long-term basis. Such movements have been attempted numerous times throughout history, on different levels and in different configurations, and they rarely meet with much more than initial success. Often times such movements have been vehicles for those who are excessively devoted to the acquisition of power to gain dictatorial holds over a large number of people, whether through the use of cult-like religious (or social) measures or through a totalitarian political (and military) movement. What you're seeing in the skepticism behind most of these posts is the cautious disapproval based on where and how similar propositions have gone wrong in the past. It isn't that most here wouldn't think a world where science and discovery were the most prominent factors could be great, it's that most people here look to attempts to create such a world with caution and a bit of suspicion, and for very good reason-- there is a lot of historical basis for such skepticism.
So, rather than propose that those here who are critical or skeptical of the Zeitgeist plan are simply being closed-minded or critical because it's not "mainstream" enough, I urge you to consider the possibility that their reasons might be every bit as broad, realistic, and valid as the reasons that those who came up with the Zeitgeist plan used in their own proposition.
.
