Poll: Zeitgeist Movement

[laol1999]

no clue what it is but ill probobly look it up some time when im bored

 

[Nimcha]

Ah, yes. I would say their ideas are disgusting and very dangerous but thankfully nobody takes them seriously so it's not worth the trouble.

Disgusting how? Dangerous how (or to whom)?

Disgusting as in wanting to subject everyone to one way of thinking and surpress individuality and personal freedom. Dangerous as any other misguided ideology, it has power to attract people who are not satisfied with the current state of affairs.

 

[NickCooley]

Please, they're interesting ideas but I have a better chance of taking over the world than any them actually happening.

 

[dvd_72]

It is, in short, a group advocating a "resource based economy", which would distribute resources around the globe in cohesion with the prime nesecities of all human beings on the planet (provided the use of modern advanced technologies, the application of which are being hindered by the profit-orientated nature of human activity). This would bring about an increased level of social equality - the absence of which is seen to be the prime cause for much social distress we see in the world today, and have witnessed in the course of history (an era of privatisation, if you will). Combines a very behavioristic approach to human psychology (thus, changing human environment -> changes human psyche), critique of the ideological isolation and intellectual materialism of modern day social institutes, competitive nature of human interaction, and the realisation of the illusiveness of human distinctions. Advocates that humanity has reached the point (globalization/technologies/understandings) where many elements of our current system have completely lost their relevance. A very brief overview.

Furthermore, as one can transpire from the nature of the questions within the poll my aim is not to spark some huge ideological debate.

So, dumbing it down and probably loosing much of the message, it's like an automated perfect comunsism that also takes away a large part of a large part of what makes us human, free choice? (No, that repetition was not an accident. I mean it takes away a large part of our free choice)

Or have I got the gist of it wrong?

 

[GoreTuzk]

@SakSak

Could you point me to reliable sources of that non-BS information that contradicts the BS I pointed to you? I'd love to straighten up my facts.

@dvd_72

Free choice? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI1624SwYnI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BAXswgpVmM (I don't agree with the fundamental conclusion of this video that life is mechanistic, I believe it's more like organic, but the point stands).
http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/30938165

 

[Korolev]

A lot of the stuff in their films is downright wrong. They have this really weird conspiracy theory surrounding Christianity, and while I am not a Christian, I also don't believe that Christians are trying to control the world (well, they aren't trying harder than any other group of people).

Skeptoid had a really good episode on this - most of their stuff is garbage. Some of their future goals are nice and I agree that we could all use more science in our lives, but again, a lot of their films are filled with bizarre nonsense that really sticks out to anyone who has studied even a little history.

Essentially they are modern day conspiracy theorists who believe that bankers are behind everything. They are not behind everything, nor are they the most powerful forces in the world (although bankers are very powerful, they are just one interest group among many).

 

[NotR]

It is, in short, a group advocating a "resource based economy", which would distribute resources around the globe in cohesion with the prime nesecities of all human beings on the planet (provided the use of modern advanced technologies, the application of which are being hindered by the profit-orientated nature of human activity). This would bring about an increased level of social equality - the absence of which is seen to be the prime cause for much social distress we see in the world today, and have witnessed in the course of history (an era of privatisation, if you will). Combines a very behavioristic approach to human psychology (thus, changing human environment -> changes human psyche), critique of the ideological isolation and intellectual materialism of modern day social institutes, competitive nature of human interaction, and the realisation of the illusiveness of human distinctions. Advocates that humanity has reached the point (globalization/technologies/understandings) where many elements of our current system have completely lost their relevance. A very brief overview.

Furthermore, as one can transpire from the nature of the questions within the poll my aim is not to spark some huge ideological debate.

So, dumbing it down and probably loosing much of the message, it's like an automated perfect comunsism that also takes away a large part of a large part of what makes us human, free choice? (No, that repetition was not an accident. I mean it takes away a large part of our free choice)

Or have I got the gist of it wrong?

It has alot to do with socialism, yes, being implemented with the prospects of modern technology. Taking the behaviouristic approach to human psychology - our environment forms who and what we are. Hence saying that there is only one static state of the environment which "makes us human" is invalid. I see it as the recognition of the illusiveness and irrelevancy of any distinction which transfers resources from a group of people who cannot support their biological existence without them to a group of people who require them to achieve more sophisticated goals, which I talked about in an earlier post.

So yes, it would take away freedom of consumption to such a degree, where there would be enstated a different method of resource distribution prioritization.

 

[Zacharine]

It isn't that money is causing inequality, its that money doesn't prevent it.

Which is a far cry from the position you originally defended. It's an entirely new goalpost.

It isn't that money is causing inequality, its that money doesn't prevent it.

Of course it doesn't. It isn't intended to. Like you said, money a systematic instrument which alows fluidity of resource flow. It is the representation of wealth as created by goods and services and available resources.

What part in that is supposed to create equality?

You are disparaging a pine tree for being inherently a very poor meal. It isn't the fault of the pine tree, it's the people trying to eat it. You're trying to use skateboard for watersurfing, and then wondering why you don't stay afloat.

You see, I don't agree. Information asymmetry is an inherent part of the goods and services available, regardless of if there is money or not. Cronies will be cronies, fraudsters will be fraudsters and and marketing personnel always have and always will present their product in the best possible light.

We have a system where a person born in a developed country spends money to fulfill his need to go watch a movie whereas a human born in some much less developed part of the world is in need of money to barely support his biological existence.

That isn't a problem of the monetary system, it's a fault of human condition, of social and biological influences within our behaviour patterns. The fact that a 'first worlder' gains a greater amount of satisfaction from watching a movie than helping build infrastructure for a 'third worlder' is not a monetary problem but a cultural and psychological one.

We humans are not perfectly good, perfectly just and perfectly charitable. That the flow of money within a monetary system reflects this is not a fault inherent in the monetary system.

The informational assymetry money (as an element which liquidizes needs (in abstract)) instills is one of the elements under which that person's needs and understandings have been formed.

Partially agree. However, notice the keywords there: "Ome of the elements". I disagree with it being a major or even important element, with cultural and societal values playing a far, far bigger and important role.

In my opinion it comes down to needs. Something I talked about before (allow me to quote myself):

...Hence, the needs are dependant on the distinctive elements and functions within the environment. Here it becomes only a question of ability (or technology) to change the environment.

With the bolded part I agree. However, money only describes the creation and flow of wealth. It does not prescribe that flow. The problem of inequal wealth prduction, raw materials use, availability and quality of farmland etc are problems of geography, government, location and so forth. It is hardly the monetary system that causes parts of Spain to be good for wine production, placed oil deposits on the Norwegian coast, made Sahara a desert or ensures semi-regular rainfalls in Uganda.

To extend this in an example: in a painting - if one were to paint a flower - it would "exist" only by the distinctive elements of color. It would not exist if you were to adress the smell or taste of it.

Noting that in the complex society we have today the amount of "colors" on the "canvas" of society is constantly increasing, members of less sophisticated societies (or microsocieties) are put into danger.

And that is a sociological and cultural problem.

Going on, the crisis of the identity can be solved by simply realising the overall perceptive nature of reality. Any depression or insatisfaction anyone might experience is just an involantary need, imposed on one's self whence one had not yet reached a certain level of intellectual maturity..

Yeah, no. Hunger is not an involuntary need. Nor is, for a consult, the requirement to have a computer working to pay for that food by providing a service in modern society.

It's focused on the flaws (aka "realistic idealism"). But isn't that a very important element of the notion "progress"?

It is just as important to understand what exists beyond the flaws, as it is to understand how and why those flaws exist. If one looks at flaws all the time, and in a manner the mixes the sources of those problems (sociology v money, cultural issue v monetary issue), one will get a very flawed world-view.

Given that they do not provide fullness of information - I do not think that they aim to.

Zeitgeist does "pull" some of their argumentation regarding economics, in terms of some of the conclusions the movie makes. I think the existing flaws it does point out are enough to validate the conclusions.

I'm taking more of a logical approach here, instead of holistic one.

A conclusion is valid and known to be so, only if the premises are correct and all logical steps between those premises and the conclusions are valid.

That is why I call Zeitgeist propaganda. They begin from their conclusion, and then attempt to (poorly) justify it. A legitimate way of doing it would have been to look at the flaws of society, identify them properly and then ask 'how do we fix this', following evidence wherever it leads.

I see it simply as information to contribute into my worldview.

Much like I see the story of Little Red Ridinghood. Doesn't mean I accept the story as true or the childish logic within as valid. It does teach something however.

The problem is that Little Red Ridinghood, unlike Zeitgeist, doesn't profess to contain The Truth (tm) and solutions to all life's problem. It also doesn't pretend to be a true story. Like I said, I agree that warning examples can be learned from - by the virtue of showing us what does not work. Same with flawed ideas - they show us where truth is not.

The conclusions they make are harmoneous with some of the ideas I harbour.

Now what was it that you said about personal convictions and preconditioned sense of rebellion...?

 

[Zacharine]

@SakSak

Could you point me to reliable sources of that non-BS information that contradicts the BS I pointed to you? I'd love to straighten up my facts.

Great!

You may wish to begin with these:

H. J. De Jonge, "The New Testament Canon," in The Biblical Canons. eds. de Jonge & J. M. Auwers (Leuven University Press, 2003)

http://www.thesacredpage.com/2006/03/loose-canons-development-of-old.html

Brown, Schuyler. The Origins of Christianity: A Historical Introduction to the New Testament. Oxford University Press (1993). ISBN 0-19-826207-8.

Taylor, Joan E. Christians and the Holy Places: The Myth of Jewish-Christian Origins. Oxford University Press (1993). ISBN 0-19-814785-6.

Blanchard, Olivier (2000), Macroeconomics, Prentice Hall, ISBN 013013306X.

Friedman, Milton (1953), Essays in Positive Economics, London: University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-26403-3.

Snowdon, Brian; , Howard R. Vane (2005), Modern Macroeconomics: Its Origins, Development And Current State, Edward Elgar Publishing, ISBN 1-84376-394-X

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1249783 "Social marketing: an approach to planned social change"

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1252108 "Marketing in the network economy"

Landsburg, Steven. Price Theory and Applications. South-Western College Pub.

Of course, the best way is to go study the topic in question in university.

 

[NotR]

It isn't that money is causing inequality, its that money doesn't prevent it.

Which is a far cry from the position you originally defended. It's an entirely new goalpost.

No, I said before that it elevates inequality, and I stated how later on in my post. My saying that it does not cause inequality was a direct response to you stating that "Removing money from the equation does nothing to solve that inequality."

Going on, the crisis of the identity can be solved by simply realising the overall perceptive nature of reality. Any depression or insatisfaction anyone might experience is just an involantary need, imposed on one's self whence one had not yet reached a certain level of intellectual maturity..

Yeah, no. Hunger is not an involuntary need. Nor is, for a consult, the requirement to have a computer working to pay for that food by providing a service in modern society.

I was not speaking of the need to satisfy hunger, nor thirst, nor sleep. Check out Maslow's hierarchy of needs for a more substantial list of needs in relation to social diversity.

The conclusions they make are harmoneous with some of the ideas I harbour.

Now what was it that you said about personal convictions and preconditioned sense of rebellion...?

What I was speaking of was the discernment of information. You immediately talk of the unwholesomeness of information. But that is not the purpose of the film. You seem to think that the movie aims to educate people on how the whole economic structure works. As absurd as it might sound to you - it does not. It points out the flaws within the the system, provided that people who are intersted in the subject conduct their own research. All of this is done to adress a general statement: "The system we have today is outdated in relation to our ability to support life, our understandings about the illusiveness of distinction, our understandings about the nature of causality concerning the forming of the human mind, the free flow of information."
You adress the unwholesomeness of the argumentation regarding the economic imperfections - hence the conclusions made as a result of that argumentation are invalid. The economic conclusion made was a resource based economy. Then the film proceeded to adress the economic and social flaws of the system we live in, whilst realising their combined nature. What you are saying is that the problems do not soleley lie within the argumentation provided - but that does not mean that the whole thing should be discarded into some essense of fact manipulation, which you suggest. The economic fact is that there are instances wherein money is emitted with no solid basis. And the analsys of cost predictions you've mentioned are in no way valid within the informational assymetry we have today. The political causes of this assymetry - yes, a barrier which exists today. Geographical - with the advent of information and other technologies it is quickly becomming irrelevant.

Notice how (as a recognized cornerstone of modern day economics) Stuart Mill implemented the abstract term "homo economicus", within which he states that he "does not treat the whole of man?s nature as modified by the social state, nor of the whole conduct of man in society. It is concerned with him solely as a being who desires to possess wealth". I understand that within the scientific method such an approach is valid, as it is a means of research. But upon being implemented into reality and combined with the perception thereof it appears as a distortion of the emergant nature of all the elements therein. I believe that in this core fallacy of the understanding of human nauture many of our problems lie today.

The problem is that Little Red Ridinghood, unlike Zeitgeist, doesn't profess to contain The Truth (tm) and solutions to all life's problem. It also doesn't pretend to be a true story. Like I said, I agree that warning examples can be learned from - by the virtue of showing us what does not work. Same with flawed ideas - they show us where truth is not.

I do not see The Truth and solutions to all life's problems in Zeitgeist either. I see at as positive stimulus for research and self-educating activity. The fact is that Zeitgeist propses nothing but that. It does not make conclusions such as "donate now" or "take violent action" or anything. It pushes people to seek within themselves to realise the illusiveness of competitive identification. It brings forth an ideal of common good (historically on practice much perversed, yes) in clearly identifyable guidelines (resources) in combination with the basic analasys of social well-being (which appear to correlate directly with social equality). And the fact that money does not provide social equality -> social well-being is a valid basis for the conlusion made - that money is irrelevant in relation to the enstated goals.

We have a system where a person born in a developed country spends money to fulfill his need to go watch a movie whereas a human born in some much less developed part of the world is in need of money to barely support his biological existence.

That isn't a problem of the monetary system, it's a fault of human condition, of social and biological influences within our behaviour patterns. The fact that a 'first worlder' gains a greater amount of satisfaction from watching a movie than helping build infrastructure for a 'third worlder' is not a monetary problem but a cultural and psychological one.

We humans are not perfectly good, perfectly just and perfectly charitable. That the flow of money within a monetary system reflects this is not a fault inherent in the monetary system.

It is a problem of the monetary system, as the moneteray system focuses on resource distribution. Either we implement an objective guideline for "good" and "just" within the system, or we do not and suffer the consequences as humans form within a system that does not set such quantifyable guidelines.

 

[dvd_72]

It is, in short, a group advocating a "resource based economy", which would distribute resources around the globe in cohesion with the prime nesecities of all human beings on the planet (provided the use of modern advanced technologies, the application of which are being hindered by the profit-orientated nature of human activity). This would bring about an increased level of social equality - the absence of which is seen to be the prime cause for much social distress we see in the world today, and have witnessed in the course of history (an era of privatisation, if you will). Combines a very behavioristic approach to human psychology (thus, changing human environment -> changes human psyche), critique of the ideological isolation and intellectual materialism of modern day social institutes, competitive nature of human interaction, and the realisation of the illusiveness of human distinctions. Advocates that humanity has reached the point (globalization/technologies/understandings) where many elements of our current system have completely lost their relevance. A very brief overview.

Furthermore, as one can transpire from the nature of the questions within the poll my aim is not to spark some huge ideological debate.

So, dumbing it down and probably loosing much of the message, it's like an automated perfect comunsism that also takes away a large part of a large part of what makes us human, free choice? (No, that repetition was not an accident. I mean it takes away a large part of our free choice)

Or have I got the gist of it wrong?

It has alot to do with socialism, yes, being implemented with the prospects of modern technology. Taking the behaviouristic approach to human psychology - our environment forms who and what we are. Hence saying that there is only one static state of the environment which "makes us human" is invalid. I see it as the recognition of the illusiveness and irrelevancy of any distinction which transfers resources from a group of people who cannot support their biological existence without them to a group of people who require them to achieve more sophisticated goals, which I talked about in an earlier post.

So yes, it would take away freedom of consumption to such a degree, where there would be enstated a different method of resource distribution prioritization.

I'm seeing quite a bit of misreading of what I wrote, weather willfull, intentional, or simply accidental.

Socialism and communism are two different systems. Comunsim wants to distribute all resources and work equally ammongst everyone while socialism strikes a balance between Capitalism and Comunsism, meaning that while you are free to run your business how you want, buy what you can and want, and make as much money as you can, some of that wealth you generate will be used to improve the lives of the less successfull. At least that's my understanding of it.

I never said there was one static state of the enviorment that makes us human. I said it was one large -part- of what makes us human. If we are no longer free to choose to do as we think best, then we will be nothing more than slaves, or animals, or machines. I don't care if I would be more comfortable like that, I would not want to loose my ability to chose for myself what I do with my life. I will gladly bear the consiquences of my actions, because I believe that is one of the fundimental things that make us human.

again, -one- of the fundimental things.

Please don't twist words to suit your needs. It's unbecoming.

 

[Sejs Cube]

OKay so basically what I take away from all of this is that they're a bunch of post-scarcity idealists with a very shaky understanding of human social theory.

That's precious. And these people have made movies centered around the tenets of this quirky worldview of theirs? How adorably Randian. They must be terribly fun at parties.

 

[Zacharine]

It is a problem of the monetary system, as the moneteray system focuses on resource distribution. Either we implement an objective guideline for "good" and "just" within the system, or we do not and suffer the consequences as humans form within a system that does not set such quantifyable guidelines.

I will respond to the rest later, but you do remember the Hayek quote from earlier?

"We must face the fact that the preservation of individual freedom is incompatible with a full satisfaction of our views of distributive justice."

Because a fact is that resources and wealth are unevenly distributed from the get go. Some areas have better farmland. Some areas more oil. Some areas more forest, some lakes, some precious minerals.

Wealth is then produced, as symbolized by money, by utilizing these resources. Goods, services.

Another fact: People prefer different goods and services to satisfy themselves. Some prefer football for fun, others badminton. Some prefer to eat rye bread, others apples.

However, even distribution of those goods and services necessitates that the person actually owning the wealth, has no say on how to use that wealth. For example, they cannot use that wealth to pay for a transporation company to bring them more apples, because apples are evenly distributed. Likewise, they cannot sell their rye bread, because rye bread is evenly distributed.

This holds true even for larger groups. Some prefer to read in their free time, some prefer sports. Others prefer to stockpile food, others prefer painting. Yet if all are evenly distributed, large groups of people end up having with too much of one for their tastes, and too little of the other.

Coupled with a third fact, first law of economics (scarcity), we arrive at a point where there isn't enough of any particular product or service for anyone.

Trade facilitates mutual satisfaction. Not due to the nature of money, but due to the nature of man: we each have unique preferences, and if given freedom, will seek to satisfy those preferences. Leading to inequal distribution of goods and services.

 

[somonels]

Seen all of them.

I did not see a call for discussion, which makes me wonder why people do so.

 

[NotR]

It is, in short, a group advocating a "resource based economy", which would distribute resources around the globe in cohesion with the prime nesecities of all human beings on the planet (provided the use of modern advanced technologies, the application of which are being hindered by the profit-orientated nature of human activity). This would bring about an increased level of social equality - the absence of which is seen to be the prime cause for much social distress we see in the world today, and have witnessed in the course of history (an era of privatisation, if you will). Combines a very behavioristic approach to human psychology (thus, changing human environment -> changes human psyche), critique of the ideological isolation and intellectual materialism of modern day social institutes, competitive nature of human interaction, and the realisation of the illusiveness of human distinctions. Advocates that humanity has reached the point (globalization/technologies/understandings) where many elements of our current system have completely lost their relevance. A very brief overview.

Furthermore, as one can transpire from the nature of the questions within the poll my aim is not to spark some huge ideological debate.

So, dumbing it down and probably loosing much of the message, it's like an automated perfect comunsism that also takes away a large part of a large part of what makes us human, free choice? (No, that repetition was not an accident. I mean it takes away a large part of our free choice)

Or have I got the gist of it wrong?

It has alot to do with socialism, yes, being implemented with the prospects of modern technology. Taking the behaviouristic approach to human psychology - our environment forms who and what we are. Hence saying that there is only one static state of the environment which "makes us human" is invalid. I see it as the recognition of the illusiveness and irrelevancy of any distinction which transfers resources from a group of people who cannot support their biological existence without them to a group of people who require them to achieve more sophisticated goals, which I talked about in an earlier post.

So yes, it would take away freedom of consumption to such a degree, where there would be enstated a different method of resource distribution prioritization.

I'm seeing quite a bit of misreading of what I wrote, weather willfull, intentional, or simply accidental.

Socialism and communism are two different systems. Comunsim wants to distribute all resources and work equally ammongst everyone while socialism strikes a balance between Capitalism and Comunsism, meaning that while you are free to run your business how you want, buy what you can and want, and make as much money as you can, some of that wealth you generate will be used to improve the lives of the less successfull. At least that's my understanding of it.

I never said there was one static state of the enviorment that makes us human. I said it was one large -part- of what makes us human. If we are no longer free to choose to do as we think best, then we will be nothing more than slaves, or animals, or machines. I don't care if I would be more comfortable like that, I would not want to loose my ability to chose for myself what I do with my life. I will gladly bear the consiquences of my actions, because I believe that is one of the fundimental things that make us human.

again, -one- of the fundimental things.

Please don't twist words to suit your needs. It's unbecoming.

I did not twist anything. You asked "Or have I got the gist of it wrong?", implying that I state my understanding of what the Zeitgeist movement is. Hence I did just that.

About freedom of choice - freedom is just an extension of the environment. Nobody is talking about taking away your ability to think - your ability to do so is already limited by your motivations and needs being formed within a certain ideological spectrum. Hence a new environment would enstate new limits for this "freedom".

 

[NotR]

It is a problem of the monetary system, as the moneteray system focuses on resource distribution. Either we implement an objective guideline for "good" and "just" within the system, or we do not and suffer the consequences as humans form within a system that does not set such quantifyable guidelines.

I will respond to the rest later, but you do remember the Hayek quote from earlier?

"We must face the fact that the preservation of individual freedom is incompatible with a full satisfaction of our views of distributive justice."

Because a fact is that resources and wealth are unevenly distributed from the get go. Some areas have better farmland. Some areas more oil. Some areas more forest, some lakes, some precious minerals.

Wealth is then produced, as symbolized by money, by utilizing these resources. Goods, services.

Another fact: People prefer different goods and services to satisfy themselves. Some prefer football for fun, others badminton. Some prefer to eat rye bread, others apples.

However, even distribution of those goods and services necessitates that the person actually owning the wealth, has no say on how to use that wealth. For example, they cannot use that wealth to pay for a transporation company to bring them more apples, because apples are evenly distributed. Likewise, they cannot sell their rye bread, because rye bread is evenly distributed.

This holds true even for larger groups. Some prefer to read in their free time, some prefer sports. Others prefer to stockpile food, others prefer painting. Yet if all are evenly distributed, large groups of people end up having with too much of one for their tastes, and too little of the other.

Coupled with a third fact, first law of economics (scarcity), we arrive at a point where there isn't enough of any particular product or service for anyone.

Trade facilitates mutual satisfaction. Not due to the nature of money, but due to the nature of man: we each have unique preferences, and if given freedom, will seek to satisfy those preferences. Leading to inequal distribution of goods and services.

Yes different areas carry different resources. The manner of their distribution is enthralled within the owner's desire to make a profit to satisfy needs (the sophistication of which depends on the developement of the society in which he or she has been formed). The ability of their distribution is a whole different topic. It lies within the clearly identifiable and quantifyable realm of technology. If the manner of application of technology also lies is the desire of profit (in the basic sense) - the developement and advance of the system at hand lies in quantity, not quality (technology being the backbone thereof). If technology were to be applied with the idea of social well-being (social equality being an indicator thereof), I doubt that we would struggle in terms of supporting life on earth.

Scarcity, niche markets, target marketing promote themselves, for it is profitable to do so. The nature of man is formed within the environment. His flaws are a reflection of the flaws within the system. I believe that prioritization of resource distribution, would greatly increase social well-being. The assortement of goods is not what I have in mind when it comes to sustaining life on earth. As a very practical example - take all the money spent on advertising (which i believe to be basically the marginal costs of the competitive nature of the market structure) and spend it on feeding and clothing (satisfying the minimal biological needs) of all people in the world. I think that would adhere to the true meaning of the term "civilization" - a "civizlized" system, where such "good/bad" prioritization is no longer an abstraction but is a quantifyable varuable within the system. In this way the liquidity of money promotes the uneven distribution of wealth (what many call "freedom"), hence resulting in the elevation of competition for resources, within which humans are born and raised and hence one might mistake the inherited characteristics as enstated by the system for "human nature".

 

[dvd_72]

It is, in short, a group advocating a "resource based economy", which would distribute resources around the globe in cohesion with the prime nesecities of all human beings on the planet (provided the use of modern advanced technologies, the application of which are being hindered by the profit-orientated nature of human activity). This would bring about an increased level of social equality - the absence of which is seen to be the prime cause for much social distress we see in the world today, and have witnessed in the course of history (an era of privatisation, if you will). Combines a very behavioristic approach to human psychology (thus, changing human environment -> changes human psyche), critique of the ideological isolation and intellectual materialism of modern day social institutes, competitive nature of human interaction, and the realisation of the illusiveness of human distinctions. Advocates that humanity has reached the point (globalization/technologies/understandings) where many elements of our current system have completely lost their relevance. A very brief overview.

Furthermore, as one can transpire from the nature of the questions within the poll my aim is not to spark some huge ideological debate.

So, dumbing it down and probably loosing much of the message, it's like an automated perfect comunsism that also takes away a large part of a large part of what makes us human, free choice? (No, that repetition was not an accident. I mean it takes away a large part of our free choice)

Or have I got the gist of it wrong?

It has alot to do with socialism, yes, being implemented with the prospects of modern technology. Taking the behaviouristic approach to human psychology - our environment forms who and what we are. Hence saying that there is only one static state of the environment which "makes us human" is invalid. I see it as the recognition of the illusiveness and irrelevancy of any distinction which transfers resources from a group of people who cannot support their biological existence without them to a group of people who require them to achieve more sophisticated goals, which I talked about in an earlier post.

So yes, it would take away freedom of consumption to such a degree, where there would be enstated a different method of resource distribution prioritization.

I'm seeing quite a bit of misreading of what I wrote, weather willfull, intentional, or simply accidental.

Socialism and communism are two different systems. Comunsim wants to distribute all resources and work equally ammongst everyone while socialism strikes a balance between Capitalism and Comunsism, meaning that while you are free to run your business how you want, buy what you can and want, and make as much money as you can, some of that wealth you generate will be used to improve the lives of the less successfull. At least that's my understanding of it.

I never said there was one static state of the enviorment that makes us human. I said it was one large -part- of what makes us human. If we are no longer free to choose to do as we think best, then we will be nothing more than slaves, or animals, or machines. I don't care if I would be more comfortable like that, I would not want to loose my ability to chose for myself what I do with my life. I will gladly bear the consiquences of my actions, because I believe that is one of the fundimental things that make us human.

again, -one- of the fundimental things.

Please don't twist words to suit your needs. It's unbecoming.

I did not twist anything. You asked "Or have I got the gist of it wrong?", implying that I state my understanding of what the Zeitgeist movement is. Hence I did just that.

About freedom of choice - freedom is just an extension of the environment. Nobody is talking about taking away your ability to think - your ability to do so is already limited by your motivations and needs being formed within a certain ideological spectrum. Hence a new environment would enstate new limits for this "freedom".

Don't we want to reduce the limitations on our freedom to think, not make them tighter? A system like this will give people the option of forgoing thought, something I see some people do with thier religions and letting that do thier thinking for them. This will infact limit us further, rather than freeing us to make of the world what we will.

 

[NotR]

Don't we want to reduce the limitations on our freedom to think, not make them tighter? A system like this will give people the option of forgoing thought, something I see some people do with thier religions and letting that do thier thinking for them. This will infact limit us further, rather than freeing us to make of the world what we will.

Implementing a system which would prioritize resource distribution amongst humans to satisfy their basic needs in food, water and shelter, whilst erasing irrelevant artificial bounderies and distinctions which contribute to social stratification and the competitive self-perserving division of the human race would put a limit on our freedoms? Is having to work to provide onesself with means for survival freedom? Is being born into a different social status just? Doesn't technological progress aim to free humans from labour? Or are we to believe that humans would not find motivation to do anything within a system that provides them with these things?

 

[dvd_72]

Don't we want to reduce the limitations on our freedom to think, not make them tighter? A system like this will give people the option of forgoing thought, something I see some people do with thier religions and letting that do thier thinking for them. This will infact limit us further, rather than freeing us to make of the world what we will.

Implementing a system which would prioritize resource distribution amongst humans to satisfy their basic needs in food, water and shelter, whilst erasing irrelevant artificial bounderies and distinctions which contribute to social stratification and the competitive self-perserving division of the human race would put a limit on our freedoms? Is having to work to provide onesself with means for survival freedom? Is being born into a different social status just? Doesn't technological progress aim to free humans from labour? Or are we to believe that humans would not find motivation to do anything within a system that provides them with these things?

And what would motivate us to improve? to strive for more? You have to take human nature into account. We are, overall, competative beings. it's the way of the world.

By taking away not only the need, but the ability to progress to a point above your peers would be debilitating to our pshyche. we would become apathetic, having no dreams or desires to strive for because everything is provided.

This notion that everyone is equal is a naive ideology. some are stronger, some are faster, some stronger, some healthy and some weak. Calling these divisions "artificial" is blinding yourself to the way of the world.

I'm not saying the world is perfect as it is. Those born in a lower social 'class' tend to find it extremely difficult to rise up beyond that, even with incredible talent. But tell me, is it fair to have those who work hard, who strive with all thier might for thier dreams to be equal to those who are content with the basics of life, to just go through a routine day by day? Should these motivated, brilliant people be held to the same level as those who are content with a simple, unnasuming life that takes little to no effort?

In the end, it is the struggles we go through, the struggle to survive, the struggle to surpass those around you, that makes us who we are. Taking these away would be taking away a large part of what we need to grow and develop as a human being, where we learn who we are and what kind of person we are. In my eyes, taking those opportunities away would contribute to a culture where nothing progresses and everything stagnates.

 

[NotR]

Don't we want to reduce the limitations on our freedom to think, not make them tighter? A system like this will give people the option of forgoing thought, something I see some people do with thier religions and letting that do thier thinking for them. This will infact limit us further, rather than freeing us to make of the world what we will.

Implementing a system which would prioritize resource distribution amongst humans to satisfy their basic needs in food, water and shelter, whilst erasing irrelevant artificial bounderies and distinctions which contribute to social stratification and the competitive self-perserving division of the human race would put a limit on our freedoms? Is having to work to provide onesself with means for survival freedom? Is being born into a different social status just? Doesn't technological progress aim to free humans from labour? Or are we to believe that humans would not find motivation to do anything within a system that provides them with these things?

And what would motivate us to improve? to strive for more? You have to take human nature into account. We are, overall, competative beings. it's the way of the world.

By taking away not only the need, but the ability to progress to a point above your peers would be debilitating to our pshyche. we would become apathetic, having no dreams or desires to strive for because everything is provided.

This notion that everyone is equal is a naive ideology. some are stronger, some are faster, some stronger, some healthy and some weak. Calling these divisions "artificial" is blinding yourself to the way of the world.

I'm not saying the world is perfect as it is. Those born in a lower social 'class' tend to find it extremely difficult to rise up beyond that, even with incredible talent. But tell me, is it fair to have those who work hard, who strive with all thier might for thier dreams to be equal to those who are content with the basics of life, to just go through a routine day by day? Should these motivated, brilliant people be held to the same level as those who are content with a simple, unnasuming life that takes little to no effort?

In the end, it is the struggles we go through, the struggle to survive, the struggle to surpass those around you, that makes us who we are. Taking these away would be taking away a large part of what we need to grow and develop as a human being, where we learn who we are and what kind of person we are. In my eyes, taking those opportunities away would contribute to a culture where nothing progresses and everything stagnates.

No, competiteveness is not human nature. There is no "human nature" within the societal identification of a human being - we are formed by external stimulus. If you think that without the need to compete to sustain biological survival humanity will find no motivation to "move on" - you are reserved to defining "motivation" only in the currently relatable sense. New incentives are bound to appear, as the identity is relieved from conflict with the relatable elements of the environment, and hence its perception of itself within the environment. It is the paradigm of competition that slows the true "progress", that is the instillment of a harmoneous perception of universal existence. The identity becomes more stubborned to external stimulis, any natural incentive to explore the environment (curiousity) is hindered.