The Zeitgeist Movement... why not?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

So who here has actually read up on The Zeitgeist Movement? Just want to make sure we are on the same starting page ya know? What parts are consider the most unrealistic and why? Are the problems stated on TZM website not really issues in the eyes of its opponents?

I have read it and I believe it is interesting. Yet, the texts are full of wishful thinking, concrete answers and methodologies are lacking and, in general, it seems to be a just a good plot for a Science Fiction movie but with no much juice to even attempt to reach someday the so called "real" world.

On the other hand, some of the questions raised on this thread are indeed good questions, while others only expose the immense difficulty people face when confronted by the possibility of thinking "outside the box" and start seeing the current world organization as something less than a canonical, unbreakable code.

Most apparently agree in that there is (really) no need to change anything, either because things are "ok" (some have asked for "proofs" about things going wrong) or because every possible idea they have seen is nothing but "an utopian fantasy". Thats about it.

To your knowledge is someone actually working in plans and methodologies to actually realize the TVP? Who besides the guy you have told us is actually WORKING on the project?

 

[balrog666]

[snip]
On the other hand, some of the questions raised on this thread are indeed good questions, while others only expose the immense difficulty people face when confronted by the possibility of thinking "outside the box" and start seeing the current world organization as something less than a canonical, unbreakable code.

Most apparently agree in that there is (really) no need to change anything, either because things are "ok" (some have asked for "proofs" about things going wrong) or because every possible idea they have seen is nothing but "an utopian fantasy". Thats about it.

[snip]

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

Everybody aware recognizes some inequity in the current social/economic system and either takes advantage of it or seeks to change it (or stupidly ignores it). But nobody sees your fantasyland world as any description of a realistic improvement (and that is at least partially your fault as you have provided no means to get from here to there).

Almost everyone seeks improvements to what they personally regard as "unfair" in society and yet real, measurable improvements are almost invariably incremental at best - there are no quantum jumps to a Brave New World.

So where does that leave your fantasy world? Back in Fairyland where it belongs.

And that's just the way it is out here in the Real World.

.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

Bravo.

Now, please continue to discuss.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Bravo.

Now, please continue to discuss.

Oh look. Failure.

An odd kind of concession speech to be sure.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

Everybody aware recognizes some inequity in the current social/economic system and either takes advantage of it or seeks to change it (or stupidly ignores it). But nobody sees your fantasyland world as any description of a realistic improvement (and that is at least partially your fault as you have provided no means to get from here to there).

So, you want me to have an entire new world order perfectly organized and planned before I start to hypothesize about? Come on, let's be serious. I have offered no answers, it would be silly to attempt them after the few days this thread has been up, and I certainly do not believe that, so far, the ZM has the answers too.

On the other hand I reckon it is an interesting topic, even you agree in that some things are not as good as they could probably be, so what's the point in trying to diminish the discussion launching words like "fantasy land"?

Now, please, can we move forward in to something useful? There is always the option to stay out of a thread if, in your opinion, it doesn't have anything of value. And the same goes for others who, apparently, just like to be bully instead of constructive.

 

[Francesca R]

Now, please, can we move forward in to something useful? There is always the option to stay out of a thread if, in your opinion, it doesn't have anything of value. And the same goes for others who, apparently, just like to be bully instead of constructive.

I submit that this is a weak cop-out. You keep asking "if we can move forward" yet you started the thread. It is not "bullying" not unconstructive to challenge you to answer queries on what you have said. If you have no response then the honourable thing to do would be to say so rather than falsely claim that you have been bullied.

 

[balrog666]

"Move forward"? Gee, let's try that.

Let's start with the state of the world today.

If you want to change things, what do you propose we change today?

.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I submit that this is a weak cop-out. You keep asking "if we can move forward" yet you started the thread. It is not "bullying" not unconstructive to challenge you to answer queries on what you have said. If you have no response then the honourable thing to do would be to say so rather than falsely claim that you have been bullied.

Francesca, moving forward means, for me, to continue to discuss the issues instead of falling in ad hominems. There is a constructive way to challenge, of course, but when it is implied that your opponent is stupid things rapidly change in to chaos. I do not believe that any of us is stupid, what is true is that sometimes is difficult to see the questions with the mindset of the one who asks them.

I consistently have stated that I don't have answers, how could I, and even then (you for example) simply demand me to give you structured responses. So yes, I have been bullied, and it is a logical statement, not an emotional one.

Now, can you please go back to see the post in which I gave concrete numbers and pointed to relevant sites in to something we can consider is a lack of efficiency of the system? I believe you were one asking me about them.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

"Move forward"? Gee, let's try that.

Let's start with the state of the world today.

If you want to change things, what do you propose we change today?

Thanks that's a good question. Well, examining the underlying concepts seems to me an important (first step). It is true that claiming that "everything will be do by robots" its a pretty bold claim, one which is not documented, nor apparently well thought etc, but you should be aware by now that I'm not the one claiming that, nor that we would have "everything we want" (so you can stop calling me in a derogative way "a hippie").

For example, I believe that we can analyze some key concepts, things like "you have to work for a living", or "money is an incentive".

Some people do not have to work for a living, yet I'm willing to bet that quite a few of them have very productive life's. This alone makes the argument about "people will not work" absurd. Sure, some of you have stated that some jobs are more enjoyable than others, so who would want to do the McJobs out there without a clear incentive (like money). I have answered that maybe it some kind of "rewards" (like big TVs) might work as incentives.

I also have answered that not everybody likes the same things, and that some people will prefer something that requires physical force instead of using their heads, or having more responsibility. I have also argued that lots of McJobs would disappear in a society that do not uses money.

Now, in the end, this would be a job for a group of experts, not an individual, For instance I would like to see that the ZM could come with planned solutions, but so far it appears (again as I have said) something that belongs to a science fiction novel.

 

[paximperium]

For example, I believe that we can analyze some key concepts, things like "you have to work for a living", or "money is an incentive".

Lets.

Some people do not have to work for a living, yet I'm willing to bet that quite a few of them have very productive life's. This alone makes the argument about "people will not work" absurd. Sure, some of you have stated that some jobs are more enjoyable than others, so who would want to do the McJobs out there without a clear incentive (like money). I have answered that maybe it some kind of "rewards" (like big TVs) might work as incentives.

You really haven't done anything here. Money is a stand in for goods and all you have done is replace the incentive of money for goods. No change at all, just new lipstick to an old system.

I also have answered that not everybody likes the same things, and that some people will prefer something that requires physical force instead of using their heads, or having more responsibility. I have also argued that lots of McJobs would disappear in a society that do not uses money.

You argued this point and no one here has accepted those reasons. Your reasoning behind why those jobs would vanish has been poorly thought out.

Now, in the end, this would be a job for a group of experts, not an individual, For instance I would like to see that the ZM could come with planned solutions, but so far it appears (again as I have said) something that belongs to a science fiction novel.

Here is the problem BDZ. None of that the Project Venus, Zeitgeist or even YOUR beliefs into this utopian belief system is new. In fact many were thought of before and some even tried before, some centuries ago and even during the Greek philosophical era. Just about every philospher since ancient times has thought of this.

You and the Zeitgeist proponents are receing crap because of how naive and uneducated you are on this issue.

Let's start with a basic point:
1)Why is money bad?
2)Why do we have to replace money?
3)What do you want to use to replace money in society?

 

[Travis]

I don't recall seeing any "bullying."

Perhaps we should stick to simple things. I'd like to see some answers to paximperium's three questions for starters. With one more question:

4)How will you prevent your replacement of money from being used as a currency and therefore becoming de-facto money?

 

[balrog666]

We can analyze trivia until the cows come home or engage in some equivalent mental masturbation.


For now, I'll go with What They Said.

.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

1)Why is money bad?
2)Why do we have to replace money?
3)What do you want to use to replace money in society?

I don't recall seeing any "bullying."
4)How will you prevent your replacement of money from being used as a currency and therefore becoming de-facto money?

Fair enough. Let's see.

1) "good" or "bad" are moral judgments, I would stick with "efficiency" and hypothesize that money it is not an efficient way to go from production to distribution to consumption. To keep things easy I selected a fact that I presented on another post (141), here it goes again:

Overweight people in the world: 1,129,542,073
Undernourished people in the world: 890,211,904
People who died of hunger TODAY: 22,009

I believe we can use this simple metrics to illustrate that (at least) the efficiency of distribution of food is poor.

One more. This illustrates the % of people living with less than 2 dollars a day:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ec...on-under-2-day

So, when a handful of individuals (less than 20%) accumulate something like 70% of wealth (not exact numbers of course), I would also say that the distribution is manipulable and this creates problems like the stated above.

2) To improve the efficiency of the system.

3) Tricky question, first we would need to define the function of money. Let's start with "a way for interchange services/products", and the answer would be to redesign society in such a way that there were no necessity for the interchange. As an idea (not claiming that it is particularly good, I'm just thinking loudly and hopping to receive adult responses) this society (not talking here about the ZM) should be able to provide housing, education, food and health care to every citizen. You don't owe them, like in this one, they are simply given.

Before stating that it is impossible or unreal, (because I'm not stating that it is plausible, we are not there yet but just thinking about possibilities) lets hypothesize that it is possible.

IFF* this system was actually in play people would stop thinking that "you have to give something in exchange for goods or services" and, maybe, it would be motivated to work by the fact that they need to keep the given services and goods (improductive people could be penalized somehow). Remember we are dealing with concepts, not dogmas (at least imo).

A second (possible) answer would be this: I just found some people working on another possible way to replace money as we know it. I have to read about it before giving an oppinion, but maybe some of you already know about this:

http://www.thetransitioner.com/English/Free_Currencies:_the_next_global_currency_system


4) IFF* 3) is possible by eliminating money then 4 is a non sequitur. IFF something like what The Transitioner proposes happen I have not an answer at this point.

*IFF in philosophy means "if and only if" btw in philosophy is common practice to put imaginary scenarios to analyse hypothesis, maybe I'm accustomed to it and this is one of the reasons the thread was falling in to ad hominems.

 

[Travis]

1) "good" or "bad" are moral judgments, I would stick with "efficiency" and hypothesize that money it is not an efficient way to go from production to distribution to consumption. To keep things easy I selected a fact that I presented on another post (141), here it goes again:

Overweight people in the world: 1,129,542,073
Undernourished people in the world: 890,211,904
People who died of hunger TODAY: 22,009

I believe we can use this simple metrics to illustrate that (at least) the efficiency of distribution of food is poor.

There may be examples of food distribution problems but how is that related to money? In fact the arrival of a capitalist, moneyed, economy often leads to the virtual elimination of famine.

On the other hand you have things like the Holodomor that happened in large centralized economies with collective agriculture.

One more. This illustrates the % of people living with less than 2 dollars a day:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ec...on-under-2-day

How many people lived on less than $1 a day just twenty years ago?

I'm afraid that this is rather odd line of argument. You are arguing the need to get rid of money because many don't have enough of it? That's effectively saying that money is needed only its distribution is presently, in your eyes, inequitable.

 

[dtugg]

I am lazy. If everything that I need or want is provided to me just by virtue of being born, I wouldn't work at all. I would just do things that I find fun like using drugs, or going on adventures around the world, or playing video games.

If I won Powerball, I wouldn't do anything that contributes to society except for spend of bunch of money.

I am sure there are many people that are like me. How does the utopian fantasy deal with this? Would we just be allowed to leech of everybody else? Would we be forced to work somehow?

 

[quarky]

maybe money isn't woo...but its opposite (debt) seems to be becoming woo-like.
Does debt actually represent something tangible?

(looks like we'll be finding out, soon enough)

 

[dtugg]

Of course debt represents something tangible...that you owe somebody money.

Without debt, most people wouldn't be able to buy a house, for example.

 

[quarky]

yes, but

debt is fast becoming larger than non-debt.

Its like dark matter; vague.

And the bail-outs are akin to homeopathy.
We need to feel good about the economy, or it doesn't work right.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Now we are talking.

There may be examples of food distribution problems but how is that related to money? In fact the arrival of a capitalist, moneyed, economy often leads to the virtual elimination of famine.

I believe there is a correlation, not proving that it exist. Of course I will continue to research now that this field became interesting (for me). On the other hand are there any facts about what you say, and which kind of system was in use before capitalism arrived? (because I imagine you have concrete examples).

It is clear that capitalism is a system which evolved from other ways of controlling capital. In a way, capitalism is going towards anarchy (in the sense of lacking of a personal final authority and personal management) if we compare it with feudalism, to put an example.

Now, what I really wonder in this thread is about what will come next to capitalism?

On the other hand you have things like the Holodomor that happened in large centralized economies with collective agriculture.

What really happened there is unclear, so I wouldn't use it as an example.

How many people lived on less than $1 a day just twenty years ago?

I don't know. Less than nowadays? I would love to see hard data, and this leads to a second question, if capitalism was still in vogue in 100 years, will this number improve significantly?

I'm afraid that this is rather odd line of argument. You are arguing the need to get rid of money because many don't have enough of it? That's effectively saying that money is needed only its distribution is presently, in your eyes, inequitable.

No it is saying that, because human nature, the result of having money as a system for interchange is the inequity we can see with our naked eyes. I would argue that (its distribution) cant be equitable, there is human greed, and money is a good gift for those who are naturally greedy. This society naturally benefits such kind of people. One important point is that one cannot choose to be greedy, as greed is more related to genetics than to culture, ergo only few humans are benefited (precisely those who will NOT want any form of change).

If all the money in the world was given in equal parts among the entire population, after only a few days there will be people accumulating it all and people losing it all. The first by accumulating the last by spending it on alcohol or gambling or... whatever... point is (imo) that money leads to inequity.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I am lazy. If everything that I need or want is provided to me just by virtue of being born, I wouldn't work at all. I would just do things that I find fun like using drugs, or going on adventures around the world, or playing video games.

If I won Powerball, I wouldn't do anything that contributes to society except for spend of bunch of money.

I am sure there are many people that are like me. How does the utopian fantasy deal with this? Would we just be allowed to leech of everybody else? Would we be forced to work somehow?

Ok some points.

1) ¿How does current society deals with rich people? They certainly do not need to work, yet, I believe a bunch of them choose to have productive life's instead of being parasites. Yes, one answer is greed, they have everything they could possible dream yet they want more. Still, Gates, Buffet, will give back almost everything they have earned, why, because once you past a certain point money is useless.

2) How come, in a world where money is indispensable as you live permanently in debt (an important point that I will stress later), there is such thing as ONGs? What would impulse anyone to volunteer? and this happens from moms working at their kids schools to firemen, risking their life's for other's, to doctors giving (for free) all their hard years of study. What in hell can be in the minds of such people? are they nuts? Or... are they also following human nature... and... there is arguabily more "givers" than "takers", so to speak.

3) (this is not the ZM but my own take), (no it is not "a solution" is just an idea in progress, one that will obviously evolve in part by the feedback I'm receiving in the JREF), You have housing, healthcare, education and food for free, but fancy TVs, travels, videogames and other stuff requires you to be productive. Now, the difference here (with actual model) is that you would not get a bigger tv if you are succesful actor than if you are a baker.