Venus Project and Zeitgeist split

[wormcode]

I'm not sure how much is deliberate and how much is just due to not having proper research and fact checking (no monies). They did change a lot of stuff in that revision they released. Not sure about the newest one, I saw it at a university screening during the world premier, but the audio sucked for half of it and I haven't gotten around to seeing it again. It's obvious Joseph is against religion and there's definitely anti-religious propaganda yeah.

This was pretty interesting

[Genevieve]

Money doesn't work for you, machines do. Now, due to recent technological advances, you can get machines that build machines It's well good, you can have a device like a printer and it layers up materials in to the required form. It will do anything from gloves to houses!
Why would you need loads of money to make a paradise where no-one works, anyway? We've already got a shit load of money 'floating' about in the world but everyone's still working! Do you know exactly how the recession happened? If you don't, it's because the banks make money up out of nothing and 'lend' it to people who then put it back in and then the banks 'lend' it again (up to 90% can generally be re-lent on any deposited amount)... the recession happened because everyone realised that not only were they buying in to a tower of cards with no decent foundation but also that the banks really couldn't justify what they were lending (it's referred to as 'negative equity' when something people invest in becomes worth less than they bought it for, 'toxic debt' is what it's called when it appears en masse explicitly and can't be shifted) so they tried to take it all out at around the same as it being devalued That's a bad double-drop

What you're describing isn't 'money', but counterfeited money and yeah, sure, that's how the monetary system "works" here. And turning the world into a pseudo-communist society (and that's exactly what it is, there are a number of communist ideologies who oppose money as well, regardless of what Jacque Fresco likes to believe) ruled by the scientific and intellectual elite may fix some problems, but will create an unfathomable degrees of new ones. And obviously, there's an inherent danger with any 'ruling' class. Even if its comprised of intellectual.

Jacque Fresco may have some fun ideas, but he completely neglects people's feelings and emotions, working firmly with 'logic'. Sadly for him, society is based on how people feel not logic. He's way too much of a black and white thinker.

And don't get me started on 'resource based economy'. Every proper economy is based on resources. Paper money was originally a token that said you have so and so much gold (a resource), that you could use to trade for products (other resources) or services (that require resources).

This is why money exist. Free will and individual wants. Just because the banking system is raped by the corporate elite doesn't mean money is an inherently bad thing. Flawed like everything else in the world, but judging money by its current implementation is like judging communism by the Soviet Union.

yes yes we've all seen Zeitgeist, recession is planned, machines can built shit for us etc etc

all that blather has nothing to with the fact that it would cost a shitload to construct

Ehh, I think it's the idea to change the economic and political system before we build all the machines.

Except, if you were to change the economic and political system, you would have to centralize it first and put it in the hands of only very few people.

And these very few people would then cal that shots and transition 'us' until the new system is in place.

And this happened before in the Soviet union and people were enslaved to the mega government without every finalizing the transition to communism.

The whole idea of the Venus Projects is the perfect example of why communism and related collectivist ideologies don't work. It's fun to discuss with a bunch of smart people in a bar, but that's the extend of it.

The problem with Zeitgeist is they tell you a lot of useful stuff but wrap it all up in deliberately misinformed propaganda

Yeah, that too. For a documentary series that is supposedly about 'thinking for yourself', they're surpisingly good at pushing their own agenda and twisting facts.

[capo ultra]

Jacque Fresco may have some fun ideas, but he completely neglects people's feelings and emotions, working firmly with 'logic'. Sadly for him, society is based on how people feel or logic. He's way too much of a black and white thinker.

you have stated eloquently exactly how I feel. My mate totally believes everything in Zeitgeist without question and goes along with the concept of no more crime without a monetary system, he honestly believes that no one would commit crimes of passion (ie if someone shags your missus) just because money would not exist

[test_recordings]

Money doesn't work for you, machines do. Now, due to recent technological advances, you can get machines that build machines It's well good, you can have a device like a printer and it layers up materials in to the required form. It will do anything from gloves to houses!
Why would you need loads of money to make a paradise where no-one works, anyway? We've already got a shit load of money 'floating' about in the world but everyone's still working! Do you know exactly how the recession happened? If you don't, it's because the banks make money up out of nothing and 'lend' it to people who then put it back in and then the banks 'lend' it again (up to 90% can generally be re-lent on any deposited amount)... the recession happened because everyone realised that not only were they buying in to a tower of cards with no decent foundation but also that the banks really couldn't justify what they were lending (it's referred to as 'negative equity' when something people invest in becomes worth less than they bought it for, 'toxic debt' is what it's called when it appears en masse explicitly and can't be shifted) so they tried to take it all out at around the same as it being devalued That's a bad double-drop

What you're describing isn't 'money', but counterfeited money and yeah, sure, that's how the monetary system "works" here. And turning the world into a pseudo-communist society (and that's exactly what it is, there are a number of communist ideologies who oppose money as well, regardless of what Jacque Fresco likes to believe) ruled by the scientific and intellectual elite may fix some problems, but will create an unfathomable degrees of new ones. And obviously, there's an inherent danger with any 'ruling' class. Even if its comprised of intellectual.

No, I'm describing real money. It's not the money that's worth anything, only what is available to exchange it for is what's actually worth something. You try paying someone in a country with a currency that's not the standard and they'll just give you funny looks! The money you are trying to give is not worth anything, it is just a symbolic value that is interpreted as equal to a certain amount real goods. Would you rather have billions of $s and £s or lots and lots of real goods? It is a useful concept for trading but the growth-based capitalist system just buries itself in possibilities and is essentially a form of slavery. This society isn't going to be ruled by a scientific elite if everyone is trained equally as advocated, even Einstein had to work with a team on the Manhattan project. Also, science isn't just chemistry, physics, biology etc you've also got psychology and sociology which are useful to keeping in check outright utilitarianism (the 'social science of science'). The current Tory-led government in the UK is quite happily maintaining natural science-based higher-education but removing it from the humanities, probably so that the huge inequality in the UK cannot be addressed. If the people at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder could be helped to have a better life equal to those at the top then the results would be far more beneficial to society in the long-term but this can't be addressed without critical analysis of society.

Jacque Fresco may have some fun ideas, but he completely neglects people's feelings and emotions, working firmly with 'logic'. Sadly for him, society is based on how people feel not logic. He's way too much of a black and white thinker.

It's an open project anyone can participate in, if you have a problem tell them. What happens if this takes off and you didn't say anything? I will take this on board though as I understand the illusion of science being a-moral though it's better to nip things in the bud than wait and have a massive patch-up session. Also, even he won't be based totally on logic and he probably knows this as the only logical people have had their frontal lobes in their brain removed... so much so they cannot work what logic to use in life! They will make endless, tedious decisions over how to, for instance, 'file' something: colour, shape, size, alphabetically? He has an idea on how to make things work and it's logical. Of course capitalism is 'logical' too but it's inhumane in the extreme!

And don't get me started on 'resource based economy'. Every proper economy is based on resources. Paper money was originally a token that said you have so and so much gold (a resource), that you could use to trade for products (other resources) or services (that require resources).

Yes, it is based on resources so much as it looks at what is within the economic system at the present time (including theoretical prospective inputs) but does not consider that there is a limit to earth's natural resources or what the limit actually is. You could cut down all the trees and be rich but then you'd die, that's the kind of problem with the current system. The earth's natural ecological systems also save humans more than several times the current global annual GDP but imagine 'spending' that much just to replicate what's already in existence? Far better to have respect for the environment and work with it than live in a cage of our own construction, at least natural systems maintain themselves! This is a resource-based system as it's based on resources as per the infinitive nature of the noun.. it covers everything. Before, we had the gold standard... now what are we working with? Figures and figments of imagination

This is why money exist. Free will and individual wants. Just because the banking system is raped by the corporate elite doesn't mean money is an inherently bad thing. Flawed like everything else in the world, but judging money by its current implementation is like judging communism by the Soviet Union.

Money was invented as a symbolic figure for the exchange of goods which is all it is good for. The capitalist money-based system is subtle slavery, basically. Also, 'free-will' and 'individual wants' are capitalist paradigms that are continuously given as why people buy so much useless junk they don't need when really it is an illusion to due to massive corporate brain-washing and paradigms of growth based on consumerism. People do not inherently 'want', they 'need' and everything else is socialised in to them. Of course, you can make people 'want' but even that use of the word is taboo in some traditional culture's languages as it is showing naked individualistic desire. The biggest problem is that people don't realise how powerful advertising and marketing is as it can saturate their mind and is so ubiquitous they can't escape it (try not watching TV for a year or so, when you next watch it you'll wonder why you ever did in the first place, generally).

yes yes we've all seen Zeitgeist, recession is planned, machines can built shit for us etc etc

all that blather has nothing to with the fact that it would cost a shitload to construct

Ehh, I think it's the idea to change the economic and political system before we build all the machines.

Except, if you were to change the economic and political system, you would have to centralize it first and put it in the hands of only very few people.

And these very few people would then cal that shots and transition 'us' until the new system is in place.

And this happened before in the Soviet union and people were enslaved to the mega government without every finalizing the transition to communism.

The whole idea of the Venus Projects is the perfect example of why communism and related collectivist ideologies don't work. It's fun to discuss with a bunch of smart people in a bar, but that's the extend of it.

Why would you need to centralise it? Now we have cloud computing you can have more readily accessible multi-lateral communication, no-one needs to sit in a tower and command it

The problem with Zeitgeist is they tell you a lot of useful stuff but wrap it all up in deliberately misinformed propaganda

Yeah, that too. For a documentary series that is supposedly about 'thinking for yourself', they're surpisingly good at pushing their own agenda and twisting facts.

Please make a list of all the facts that are twisted, it would do everyone a lot of good and might save you a lot of hassle. Also, what is their agenda beyond pointing out the huge problems we face today, how the current economic system that is being used in completely inadequate and that a (natural) resource-based one would fix this if it was distributed fairly?

[Genevieve]

No, I'm describing real money. It's not the money that's worth anything, only what is available to exchange it for is what's actually worth something. You try paying someone in a country with a currency that's not the standard and they'll just give you funny looks! The money you are trying to give is not worth anything, it is just a symbolic value that is interpreted as equal to a certain amount real goods. Would you rather have billions of $s and £s or lots and lots of real goods? It is a useful concept for trading but the growth-based capitalist system just buries itself in possibilities and is essentially a form of slavery. This society isn't going to be ruled by a scientific elite if everyone is trained equally as advocated, even Einstein had to work with a team on the Manhattan project. Also, science isn't just chemistry, physics, biology etc you've also got psychology and sociology which are useful to keeping in check outright utilitarianism (the 'social science of science'). The current Tory-led government in the UK is quite happily maintaining natural science-based higher-education but removing it from the humanities, probably so that the huge inequality in the UK cannot be addressed. If the people at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder could be helped to have a better life equal to those at the top then the results would be far more beneficial to society in the long-term but this can't be addressed without critical analysis of society.

The value of money right now is pretty much nothing. Sure. But there was a time we had a gold standard. Value of money used to be derived from gold. Paper money was a token that said you have so and so much gold in the bank and because it was easier to trade paper than it is to trade gold, paper money was traded for good rather than the gold itself.





These videos explain it quite well.

If money was printed without gold backing it up, it was considered counterfeiting and punishable.

There was a time some countries had capitalism, a gold standard and no central banking system. Pre-1913 USA, for example (though they temporarily had a central bank as well, it was quickly overthrown).

Secondly. Some people are just stupid. I'm sorry, it sucks, but they just are. It's ok, though. These people may be incredible artists or sportsmen. Point is, not everyone is the same and by raising them the same, giving them the same education, you're not going to get 'equal people'. The problem with education these days is that they TRY to homoginize it and try to teach people the same thing, disregarding what kids actually want and like. I do believe all kids deserve the same, highest, standard of education, though.

That's why it's important to have smaller classes. The most important thing teachers can do for kindergarten age kids is teach them 3 days per week and observe their individual strengths, weaknesses and more importantly, INTEREST. Leave the other days of the week in the hands of daycare where kids can just freely play and socialize. Teach kids the basics and let them figure out for themselves what they like about it and what they don't.

Simply put. Collectivizing the school system is what has gotten us into trouble in the first place and we're not going to fix that by teaching the same thing to different kids. Especially seeing as some kids just aren't mentally on the same level as other OR more importantly, aren't on the same level in the same way.

By the age of 16 kids probably know their strengths and weaknesses and can learn accordingly, on their level, in their pace. And it's the parent's job to make sure that their kid is doing what he can do. By zoning in to what kids like, you'll know they'll perform higher.

It's an open project anyone can participate in, if you have a problem tell them. What happens if this takes off and you didn't say anything? I will take this on board though as I understand the illusion of science being a-moral though it's better to nip things in the bud than wait and have a massive patch-up session. Also, even he won't be based totally on logic and he probably knows this as the only logical people have had their frontal lobes in their brain removed... so much so they cannot work what logic to use in life! They will make endless, tedious decisions over how to, for instance, 'file' something: colour, shape, size, alphabetically? He has an idea on how to make things work and it's logical. Of course capitalism is 'logical' too but it's inhumane in the extreme!

I'm not bothering to tell them because it won't take off.

And I'm not saying that he's a completely 'logical' person who doesn't act out of emotion. But that he's naive in think that a 'logically constructed society' will apply to everyone and everyone will just go along with it.

Yes, it is based on resources so much as it looks at what is within the economic system at the present time (including theoretical prospective inputs) but does not consider that there is a limit to earth's natural resources or what the limit actually is. You could cut down all the trees and be rich but then you'd die, that's the kind of problem with the current system. The earth's natural ecological systems also save humans more than several times the current global annual GDP but imagine 'spending' that much just to replicate what's already in existence? Far better to have respect for the environment and work with it than live in a cage of our own construction, at least natural systems maintain themselves! This is a resource-based system as it's based on resources as per the infinitive nature of the noun.. it covers everything. Before, we had the gold standard... now what are we working with? Figures and figments of imagination

The limited amount of resources is one of the cornerstones of capitalism because price is derived by the scarcity of a product or resource in conjunction with the number of people who want to use those products/resources (not in our current system, but obviously, we don't live in a capitalist society but a corporatist society and corporatism is neo-liberal application of Leninism/Stalinism -- I support capitalism and oppose corporatism). This is where "supply and demand" comes from. If the supply is limited, the price goes up.

(A little sidenote: That's why I think it's hilarious that so many supposedly anti-capitalist record collectors are willing to spend big bucks on DMZ releases and other rare vinyl: they're actively taking part in the 'supply and demand" dynamic. Physical records, especially rare ones, are an embodiment of capitalism. If you hate capitalism, download the 320s or Wavs)

Money was invented as a symbolic figure for the exchange of goods which is all it is good for. The capitalist money-based system is subtle slavery, basically. Also, 'free-will' and 'individual wants' are capitalist paradigms that are continuously given as why people buy so much useless junk they don't need when really it is an illusion to due to massive corporate brain-washing and paradigms of growth based on consumerism. People do not inherently 'want', they 'need' and everything else is socialised in to them. Of course, you can make people 'want' but even that use of the word is taboo in some traditional culture's languages as it is showing naked individualistic desire. The biggest problem is that people don't realise how powerful advertising and marketing is as it can saturate their mind and is so ubiquitous they can't escape it (try not watching TV for a year or so, when you next watch it you'll wonder why you ever did in the first place, generally).

Nope. There are many native cultures that in America that believe in individualism and private property, long before European arrived. Were these people brainwashed by the media? Similarly, there were also many cultures that believed in collectivism and public property. To say that 'individualism' is the result of brainwashing the population is nothing more but a baseless attempt to undermine its merits. Secondly we live in collectivist societies that operate on the guise of individualism. Much like we live in corporatist societies that are sold to us as capitalist ones. Brainwashing? Naw. But clearly, we live in a different world than the one that is being described by the higher ups.

Why would you need to centralise it? Now we have cloud computing you can have more readily accessible multi-lateral communication, no-one needs to sit in a tower and command it

Because governments are in place to secure the economy. Modern day governments do this by controlling it rather than protecting it (I support a free economy, that is protected by the government by holding individuals accountable for their actions and actively try to keep government and market interest separate). If you want to change the economy, you will need to change the government. If you want to change the government you have to be apart of it.

Please make a list of all the facts that are twisted, it would do everyone a lot of good and might save you a lot of hassle. Also, what is their agenda beyond pointing out the huge problems we face today, how the current economic system that is being used in completely inadequate and that a (natural) resource-based one would fix this if it was distributed fairly?

Can't remember all their factual inaccuracies so take it with a grain of salt. I just remember that when I watched it they've had a lot of stuff... wrong.

Secondly, it's their agenda to get people to believe that the 'Venus Project' is the answer to the problems they pose in their documentary and draw other drastic conclusions (like Christianity being based on Egyptian paganism, backed with absolutely awful, unscientific sources) to help them get their point across.

[test_recordings]

Interesting videos, thank you for sharing though as I am without a listening device I can't hear them Will mark for later, however ta

On to the rest...

That's why it's important to have smaller classes. The most important thing teachers can do for kindergarten age kids is teach them 3 days per week and observe their individual strengths, weaknesses and more importantly, INTEREST. Leave the other days of the week in the hands of daycare where kids can just freely play and socialize. Teach kids the basics and let them figure out for themselves what they like about it and what they don't.

A study in the UK found class sizes made no difference to the size, it's a political thing more than anything. One school found children did remarkably better with 60 pupils in but with 2 teachers and 2 assistants! It's also debatable what children should be taught though how they are taught it is more of a moot point as another study showed that (in a standard class of up to 30) children learned more when they were all given boards to write on and all displayed the answers simultaneously, this allowed the teacher to see how well the whole class understood the concept rather pupils not participating by not sticking their hand up to answer at all or, on the other extreme, answering every question.
Also, you're point of giving children the option to choose what they want is commendable but you might not realise it (or correct me if I'm wrong) it's a neo-liberalist outlook that other cultures would not agree with and would prefer much more guided model of education. To some people not having a choice in life would be antithetical to their own existence but in other cultures it is routine for your parents to decide many things in life for you like arranged marriages which apparently work a lot better than individual choice-based partnerships (the children grow up used to it and don't see the need for anything else though it would also be harder to leave one due to loss of possible loss of social support). Children of Chinese ethnicity also do exceptionally well in the UK education system and this is most probably due to the following of Confucian ethics that advocate a strong commitment to education to succeed in life - same system but different ways of playing lead to different results.

Secondly. Some people are just stupid. I'm sorry, it sucks, but they just are. It's ok, though. These people may be incredible artists or sportsmen. Point is, not everyone is the same and by raising them the same, giving them the same education, you're not going to get 'equal people'. The problem with education these days is that they TRY to homoginize it and try to teach people the same thing, disregarding what kids actually want and like. I do believe all kids deserve the same, highest, standard of education, though.

Homogenisation of education is from basing it on the Prussian model, even in the 1800s Americans were debating whether the 'Germanisation' of their children's education was really worth it. It should be changed since it was designed to win wars in empire-building and times have, to put it lightly, changed a bit since then. What would be a decent strategy for reforming education then? It seems that de-centralisation would be a good idea, Scotland seems to do better then England and a de-centralised education model with more non-state inputs is used. Might be worth investigating a bit more though the UK 'Free School Act' might be an active experiment in this but it needs more widespread application for comparisons.

By the age of 16 kids probably know their strengths and weaknesses and can learn accordingly, on their level, in their pace. And it's the parent's job to make sure that their kid is doing what he can do. By zoning in to what kids like, you'll know they'll perform higher.

Funny you should mention this but Poland reformed it's school system so that children aren't streamed by ability until they're 16 (past mandatory education age, I think) and they instantly raised results. Streaming at lower levels might cement children's perceptions of their own ability so they might not try to work out of the box, as it were.

I'm not bothering to tell them because it won't take off.

I will then

And I'm not saying that he's a completely 'logical' person who doesn't act out of emotion. But that he's naive in think that a 'logically constructed society' will apply to everyone and everyone will just go along with it.

Everyone still operates on a kind of logic and he's not naive for thinking that it could work though as I mentioned it before it does seem to be homogenised in an American liberalist kind-of way. Don't forget though, it's not just him that's working on this and social scientists will be able to research how to enact a plurality of social systems. (I have to go so I'll get back to the rest later...)

[matt5120]

Centrally planned economies have always, and will always fail. There is simply never a way of having access to enough information about the performance in different areas of the economy, and thus there is never a way of planning resource allocation correspondingly.

The free market, and competition, has brought humanity to where we are today.

[Badman Juice]

I know what your saying, but personally I don't plan on having children so I don't really care

To quote Lao Tzu and his work the 'Dao De Jing': "Inaction is action". If you don't do anything about you are still permitting this to happen in a passive fashion, if you do not care please at least be considerate in your choices in life to prevent suffering.

why though?

[test_recordings]

Centrally planned economies have always, and will always fail. There is simply never a way of having access to enough information about the performance in different areas of the economy, and thus there is never a way of planning resource allocation correspondingly.

The free market, and competition, has brought humanity to where we are today.

Belarus didn't? They have only just sold off their central economy and not by popular demand either, more political reasons (EU entry, likely). There is a way of knowing how each system is functioning if you put the correct communication capacities in place, the modern 'free market' is a lot more disorganised. It also doesn't have to be a 'central economy', if you watched the Zeitgeist documentary it details a devolved economic system so there is less reliance, if any, on long supply chains - there is easily the capacity to do this with current technology too and Japan, for instance, is implementing a lot of projects on this scale.
We just happened to be brought where are today by what happened before anyway, you can't make a realistic comparison as there's nothing to compare it to? It's bit like the guy that the wrote a book recently released, 'The West and the West', detailing how Europeans became imperial superpowers as if it was pure skill when it's more likely that it's because China stopped ocean exploration when it had the biggest fleet in the world, the largest ships and best maritime workers of any nation on the planet - if they had bothered to travel east instead of west they would probably have discovered America first and that would have made the story of humanity very different to that of the past several hundred years.

The limited amount of resources is one of the cornerstones of capitalism because price is derived by the scarcity of a product or resource in conjunction with the number of people who want to use those products/resources (not in our current system, but obviously, we don't live in a capitalist society but a corporatist society and corporatism is neo-liberal application of Leninism/Stalinism -- I support capitalism and oppose corporatism). This is where "supply and demand" comes from. If the supply is limited, the price goes up.

The problem with the current way things are calculated is that hoarding for profit is encouraged when it causes a lot of suffering, just look at all the famine and povery when there's easily enough to go round! It also only considers a introverted market place not the ecological limits that are most definitely real. Capitalism wasn't actually that popular when it was first introduced as a concept since the Christian majority found it a bit suspicious (greed = sin) and the promise of 'an abundance of wealth' being created for use has ended up rather unequal and benefiting a very small minority. The actual percentage of workers' wages that contribute GDP has not risen for decades while business profits' share increased - that is mass economic stagnation that's not accounted for by the current calculations of what's 'good' when measuring performance (if this continues you will have a form of slavery in existence again, if you don't think it is already you will not be able to refute it). I don't know what Leninism/Stalinism is though I am familiar with Marxism (Marx was the first to logically delineate capitalism, too, so I've seen his fundamental theorem of that as well), how does that work then?

(A little sidenote: That's why I think it's hilarious that so many supposedly anti-capitalist record collectors are willing to spend big bucks on DMZ releases and other rare vinyl: they're actively taking part in the 'supply and demand" dynamic. Physical records, especially rare ones, are an embodiment of capitalism. If you hate capitalism, download the 320s or Wavs)

That is pretty silly but then people don't often make the connection between their actions and the world. I bet if you measured their political stance it would be 'authoritarian' as much as 'left'... Have you seen the political compass? Very interesting test that adds another dimension to 'left' and 'right' http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Because governments are in place to secure the economy. Modern day governments do this by controlling it rather than protecting it (I support a free economy, that is protected by the government by holding individuals accountable for their actions and actively try to keep government and market interest separate). If you want to change the economy, you will need to change the government. If you want to change the government you have to be apart of it.

I recognise that but you can create a plurality of systems by concensus? Also, totally free markets are bad and there needs to be some limit on activity, like Hobbes (?) put 'private property is permissible so long as there is enough for other people' and it isn't like that now. Also, companies will quite happily poison their customers if they get the chance and no-one will notice - even saying 'so much parts per million' etc is just giving business a license to poison, use up all available resources even if its slower but still inevitable etc. You might be interested in the book 'Cradle To Cradle' as it outlines a concept of business that is ultimately sustainable and isn't neo-Marxist but still resource-based, some very large companies like Ford are already respecting this principle. Also, why not make everyone part of the government and have a much more free and open political control? Referendums all round! The government doesn't have to be a separate entity from a population just as it can be synonymous with business.

Nope. There are many native cultures that in America that believe in individualism and private property, long before European arrived. Were these people brainwashed by the media? Similarly, there were also many cultures that believed in collectivism and public property. To say that 'individualism' is the result of brainwashing the population is nothing more but a baseless attempt to undermine its merits. Secondly we live in collectivist societies that operate on the guise of individualism. Much like we live in corporatist societies that are sold to us as capitalist ones. Brainwashing? Naw. But clearly, we live in a different world than the one that is being described by the higher ups.

I did not say that they are solely capitalist paradigms but they are used in further amoral capitalist agenda which people don't realise, they're living in a goldfish bowl most of the time and can't imagine anything else (or are told it's very bad) - hence 'brainwashing', more like 'false consciousness' in this case.

Can't remember all their factual inaccuracies so take it with a grain of salt. I just remember that when I watched it they've had a lot of stuff... wrong.

Secondly, it's their agenda to get people to believe that the 'Venus Project' is the answer to the problems they pose in their documentary and draw other drastic conclusions (like Christianity being based on Egyptian paganism, backed with absolutely awful, unscientific sources) to help them get their point across.

Actually, this kind of stuff was written about by Oswald Spengler in 'The Declien Of The West' - Christianity in it's most 'popular' form (Roman Catholocism) is basically a re-hash of the Roman Empire just it's now a theocracy instead of a republic. The Romans re-appropriated lots and lots of pagan festivals and even changed Jesus' supposed birthday to around the winter solstice (the sun being reborn), it was meant to be around a different time but didn't fit with how they thought the universe really worked.
Also, if you can't fit your hunch to evidence then maybe you're wrong? You can't say their bad on having dodgey sources when you're not showing any to disprove it?

[test_recordings]

I know what your saying, but personally I don't plan on having children so I don't really care

To quote Lao Tzu and his work the 'Dao De Jing': "Inaction is action". If you don't do anything about you are still permitting this to happen in a passive fashion, if you do not care please at least be considerate in your choices in life to prevent suffering.

why though?

Because you're standing about and watching it happen, basically. Would you watch someone starve to death?

[2manynoobs]

my dream is to be living in a free county, free from the capitalist/consumerist economy.

[Badman Juice]

I know what your saying, but personally I don't plan on having children so I don't really care

To quote Lao Tzu and his work the 'Dao De Jing': "Inaction is action". If you don't do anything about you are still permitting this to happen in a passive fashion, if you do not care please at least be considerate in your choices in life to prevent suffering.

why though?

Because you're standing about and watching it happen, basically. Would you watch someone starve to death?

I already do.

[test_recordings]

I know what your saying, but personally I don't plan on having children so I don't really care

To quote Lao Tzu and his work the 'Dao De Jing': "Inaction is action". If you don't do anything about you are still permitting this to happen in a passive fashion, if you do not care please at least be considerate in your choices in life to prevent suffering.

why though?

Because you're standing about and watching it happen, basically. Would you watch someone starve to death?

I already do.

okay, re-frame that to 'watch someone starve to death if they don't want to but have no choice as they are denied food by greedy bastards in another place acting in contempt of decency'?

[2manynoobs]

first read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation


then google the formula of Fisher. Basically everything that happens on the macro-economic level can be backed up by the formula of Fisher. It'll make you understand all of it

[kingGhost]

in other important news, i'm not wearing any socks.

[test_recordings]

first read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation


then google the formula of Fisher. Basically everything that happens on the macro-economic level can be backed up by the formula of Fisher. It'll make you understand all of it

Ah reet I'll have a look through the proofing when I've got more time. Is Islamic finance covered in all this, like a particular advoaction of certain principles only, or is it something separate? MScs in the subject are getting quite popular now since they're not about making money out of money.

I already do.

okay, re-frame that to 'watch someone starve to death if they don't want to but have no choice as they are denied food by greedy bastards in another place acting in contempt of decency'?

Sorry I sound like a zealous prick and you could be watching yourself starve! The media just like to ignore such issues casually so for the average person it's 'out of sight, out of mind'...

Anyway, a couple of interesting books are in circulation that detail rational and logical morality. One details morality based on science rather than Judo-Christian ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Landscape) and the other is a mash of (secular) philosophical truisms from a huge variety of characters throughout history but have all been amalgamated and anonymised (http://www.bloomsbury.com/Good-Book/A-C ... 0747599609). Might be worth looking in to if you're not inclined to live in a theocracy.

Also, the urban design advocated in the latest Zeitgeist (Moving Forward) isn't completely koo-koo as New Scientist had an article titled 'Total Reboot' about what urban design would take in to consideration and act upon if there was a completely blank landscape to build on... lo and behold, it was pretty much exactly what Zeitgeist was on detailing. Worth a read if you can find a back-copy of the issue released March 26th. It would be at all surprising if China used such principles and more in the 'mega city' project on the mainland next to Hong Kong (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... eople.html), this is quite possible since Tokyo is home to around 37 million in the connected metropolitan area and the everything runs on time, all the time, at least.