|
|
|
|
|
| | The Zeitgeist MovementPage 7 of 11 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) | | Ah, my mistake it is msg 160 that is the one that would be good to see addressed. | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 7/22/2012 10:39:51 AM | First off I shall start with a thankyou for being mature enough to admit you got the post number wrong. Normally when interracting with RBE critics I would get something to the effect of “Alright smart-arse, post 160 then!”. I really hope you guys acknowledge and appreciate the time and effort I put into addressing every single one of these points for the purposes of you fully understanding this. If CressB wants to ignorantly dismiss it as “rhetoric” then we clearly have nothing more to discuss. But don’t think you can keep debating with me when you dismiss whatever I say. That’s like a kid asking another a question, then when the other kid answers they start shouting at them “LIAR! LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!” IF you don’t wanna listen to the answers, then do us ALL a favour and don’t ask the questions to begin with. Here’s my response to post 160:
Just to put a frame of reference on this, "it has to be global". Jacque Fresco, referring to the implementation of the Venus Project.
This is a reference that many “countries” have to work together and co-operate in order to create an optimum network of collaboration and function, as opposed to one single city or one single country which would only be able to access the resources within its own territory.
Ok, this one was a given for me (which is probably why I glossed over it), but let's do that then:
We are talking about more than 7,000,000,000 iPhones ( in fact I would say 1.33 times the population (give or take) at any given time, in order to account for loss/brakage/replacement/rotation. So, the actual figure would be more like, 9,310,000,000 - however this is going to be off set by excluding all the people that fall outside the appropriate age group; I would say about fourteen years of age: the number ends up being 7,824,833,332). To put this in perspective for you, as of march, 2011, 108,000,000 iPhones have been sold world wide. Now, that is not to say that there are, one-hundred eight million iPhones in circulation today. let's go with the 1.33 rule of thumb (which is by no means accurate, just a guess). So, the number would look more like 81,203,000. And of course, this would be minus apple's supply stock, which may some what balance this this figure back out.
This completely ignores the assertion that TZM & TVP has always made which is that it is FAR more efficent on resources, effort, etc. to orient our goods and services in an access set-up very much like a library or rental system works today. If you need to make use of an iPhone, then you check one out. And when you’re done with it, you return it. However the first step is to take a survey of how many people exactly WOULD want an iPhone and how often they reckon they would want to use it for so you can gauge how many you would need to make to account for that “demand” and thus create an adequate “supply” thus using that middle-ground between preserving as many resources as possible, and meeting the needs of the population. Considering not everyone wants an iPhone (I personally don’t and I love technology) its just common sense that the argument that it is unrealistic to expect to provide every human being with an iPhone is assenine and unreasonable. Its an extreme example that RBE critics have tried to use in an attempt to smear an RBE.
To put this even further into perspective, let's take a look at one of the most highly manufactured products on the face of the earth, cars:
(Huffington Post)
"According to a report from Ward's Auto released last week, the global number of cars exceeded 1.015 billion in 2010, jumping from 980 million the year before."
Only one billion cars on the roads today. One billion! And cars have been being manufactured for more than a century now. Hell, even with circular cities and good public transport, that still isn't enough cars to even be shared. We're going to need at least another billion or two or more. And this doesn't even address the problem of how people will react to other people, in society, who get to have a car full time, out of necessity, due to their function in society.
The journalist conveniently doesn’t even propose WHY optimal and efficient public transportation wouldn’t be appreciated and hense WHY more cars would be needed. If you’ve ever been to New York then you will notice there’s a car rental system called “The Zip Car”. Very efficient and productive.
So, this is just two products. let's go for even more perspective, but let's cut the numbers in half, because many of these things are household items that get shared on a limited basis. Four billion TV's, microwaves, ovens, refrigerators, PC's, houses/living spaces, ceiling fans, AC units, beds, etc, so on and so forth.
In the access orientation that I have described and you can find much better explanations in TZM’s materials, what need is there for the disgusting resource depleting practise of multiplicity that monetary economics demands today?
I think that you can see where I am going with this. Do you really think, by these numbers, that there is not a genuine sacristy problem involved here? And I mean MANY times over. We would, quite literally, have to strip the planet bare, in order to achieve this - and even then, I don't think it could be done. Not only this, but we haven't even factored in your autonomous manufacturing and distribution system yet, which is going to have to be quite enormous, by the way.
The ideas put forth by the Venus Project can only function properly if abundance can be achieved (and even then there are some major issues which I will talk about later) Is scarcity real? I hope that, by the above, I have demonstrated that the answer to this is, yes, very much so.
This is merely the opinion of the journalist, not backed up by any scientific, engineering or technological data.
Let's set the numbers aside for a moment and ask the question of, how we get from here to there? First, we have to build your autonomous infrastructure, an enormous apparatus the likes of which the world has never seen. Who is going to build this?
See Jacque Fresco’s work entitled “Self-Erecting Structures” which explains this in detail.
What will be their motivation for doing it?
As I have referred you to a work that expains that humans won’t be the prime driver for the construction of infrastructure, just like humans aren’t the prime driver in the construction of a car today, even IF humans were the workers charged with the task of building these stru ctures, their motivation would be knowing that contributing towards infrastructute that betters society also comes back to benefit their lives as well. As I have already stated on both of these threads, self-interest becomes social interest.
Will they do it for free?
Notice that the journalist is looking at an RBE with a monetary system frame of reference.
How will we rest control of the existing infrastructure from those who currently control it, in order to begin this task –
I personally asset that critical mass and extensive awareness combined with a knowledge of how and why the current system is collapsing will result in mass public pressure against the establishent to either stand down or enable such changes to be made, thus enabling the construction of said infrastructure. That’s just one facet of one element of a transition that is vrtually unpredictable.
it will be necessary to begin with the existing infrastructure. What about the jobs that cannot be automated: mining, many aspects of agriculture, many aspects of manufacturing, construction, etc.
Actually, those jobs are some of the jobs that are most optimised by machine automation.
If we are upping production to churn out your apparatus and all of these new products, there will be a serious need for major additions to our current labor force.
Considering the journalist is talking about creating even more multiplicity than the current system demands, this comment has no basis.
Funny, what comes to mind when I think about this: the slaves who built the pyramids, only, I don't think that the pyramids would even come close in comparison. The list of impractical situations humanity would have to be put into,
Another appeal to fear fallacy. It conjures a vision of slave-labour when in fact the proposals of an RBE is quite the opposite. I notice that a lot of TZM critics go back and forth in their criticisms. In one sentence they say things like:
“So everyone’s gonna be a lazy bum who sits on their arse all day playing videogames while machines rule our lives”
And the in another sentence they say things like:
“So human beings are gonna be the slaves used to create this utopia? Who orders these slaves? How much do the slaves get paid? Do they have a right to a labour union?”
So we gotta call out these inconsistencies and hypocrisies when we see them.
in order to accomplish this vision of a utopia, continues on very much further than I care to continue to carry it any longer.
The vast majority of people who use the word “utopia” are merely throwing it out as an irrational logical fallacy without even knowing what it means. We in TZM & TVP re cognise that the world is always changing. Everything from the movements of the cosmic bodies down to human thoughts, beliefs and understandings are in constant transition. “Utopia” refers to a fixed end state of perfection. In such a naturally transitional universe, “utopia” is theorectically and physically impossible.
Let's examine some of the ideas that have been put forth, by the Venus Project, to attempt to solve these problems, and gauge their feasibility.
First, I think that it is important, to draw a line, and say that we will not be regressing, technologically speaking. An iPhone is an iPhone. I would not settle for an inferior replacement, that is "almost" an iPhone. We need to be progressing technologically, never regressing or stagnant and incapable of moving forward.
I completely agree. 100%. In fact, technology cannot regress. It is a natural progression and evolution in and of itself. There is no stoppin it. So we might as well embrace it and move along with it. Regardless of whatever traditionalised notions and outdated economic systems are left behind. The priority is progress and survival. Not stagnation and inhibition.
In my opinion, the most important overarching goal of humanity, right now, should be to get off this planet (it's kinda like having all your eggs in one basket, ya know). There are many things that could happen, at any time, that could completely whip us out (rouge brown dwarf could wander through our system, massive meteor/comet strike, etc). And then what, no more human beings or the unique brand of life from the planet earth, that's what. We need to be constantly chipping away at Moore's Law, and headed towards the technology singularity, for better or worse, it's our only hope.
Again, I couldn’t agree more. However the one problem there is that we have not as of yet, found another planet within a reasonable range that has a hospitable atmosphere to human life. Granted we can colonise the moon and in fact I whole-hearted advocate that, coz it would FURTHER cement the notion of having an RBE as the orientation. You would HAVE to implement an RBE-like socio-economic model on a moon coloney or mars colony coz think about it, is there an atmosphere viable for allowing human beings to work as farmers or similar jobs? But putting that aside for a second, if we have colonised another PLANET or moon, don’t you thin it’s a little infantile to keep the ridiculous and outdated notion of relying on limited physical potential and limited mental capacity human beings as the driving force of production, manufacturing, distribution? No, of course not. Don’t believe me? Then talk to any space industry engineer about what kind of system we would have on a moon-base or a mars-base. These people have had an RBE-like system in mind for this kind of thing for DECADES.
Wow, so I just went over to the Venus Projects site to gather material to review for this part of my analysis, and found that there was nothing of any worth there to review.
This is a clear mark of many TZM & TVP critics. Trying to imply a lack of substance as an excuse to dismiss everything they read. This tactic actually backfires since the dismissal prevents them from actually absorbing the information they are trying to refute, resulting in them endlessly asking the same questions that have been endlessly answered. Its sad really.
I was expecting science, in the form of testable proposals about how the Venus Project might be implemented, instead, I found nothing but a single essay filled with nothing but a bunch of rhetorical nonsense? And a video,
Again, an irrational dismissal. Just to let everyone know, there is FAR more than that on www.thevenusproject.com. FAR more.
and what looks to be a very thin book, designed with displaying pictures in mind? Both $25 apiece. Which is kind of ironic, coming from a group advocating the abolition of money.
I have both a physical copy and PDF copy of “The Best That Money Can’t Buy” both of which I got for free. It’s a fully illustrated 166 page book a bit larger than A4. In fact, if you know and are friends with the right people in TZM & TVP since we pass each other educational materials all the time, then chances are you can get all of Jacque’s material completely free.
And not one scientifically arrived at proposal, again very ironic coming from a group advocating that humanities only salvation lies in the proper application of science. Non-the-less, let's continue on.
I have answered the “peer review” question about Jacque’s work in my latest Misc. Q&A podcast.
There were two things that I picked out of the essay, that were mildly useful. They are as follows:
Stated goals of the Venus Project:
1. Realizing the declaration of the world's resources as being the common heritage of all people.
2. Transcending the artificial boundaries that currently and arbitrarily separate people.
3. Replacing money-based nationalistic economies with a resource-based world economy.
4. Assisting in stabilizing the world’s population through education and voluntary birth control.
5. Reclaiming and restoring the natural environment to the best of our ability.
6. Redesigning cities, transportation systems, agricultural industries, and industrial plants so that they are energy efficient, clean, and able to conveniently serve the needs of all people.
7. Gradually outgrowing corporate entities and governments, (local, national, or supra-national) as means of social management.
8. Sharing and applying new technologies for the benefit of all nations.
9. Developing and using clean renewable energy sources.
10. Manufacturing the highest quality products for the benefit of the world’s people.
11. Requiring environmental impact studies prior to construction of any mega projects.
12. Encouraging the widest range of creativity and incentive toward constructive endeavour.
13. Outgrowing nationalism, bigotry, and prejudice through education.
14. Eliminating elitism, technical or otherwise.
15. Arriving at methodologies by careful research rather than random opinions.
16. Enhancing communication in schools so that our language is relevant to the physical conditions of the world.
17. Providing not only the necessities of life, but also offering challenges that stimulate the mind while emphasizing individuality rather than uniformity.
18. Finally, preparing people intellectually and emotionally for the changes and challenges that lie ahead.
And, the closing paragraph from the essay:
The Venus Project does not advocate dissolving the existing free-enterprise system. We believe it will eventually evolve towards a resource-based society of common heritage in due course. All that The Venus Project offers is an alternative approach for your consideration.
Let's begin with the latter quote, because there are some related elements in your post that I would like to address.
You're assuming the masses are as ignorant as they are now.
Actually no, quite the opposite. An RBE is a system that benefits not from mass delusion and mass undereucation, but rather mass awareness of what betters humanity and the drive to want to contribute towards that in a positive, and productive manner.
With the burden of wage-slavery removed, with time to learn, the least educated person in this society would be like one of us compared to the uneducated peasant of 500 years ago. I would say that new algorithms would be put forward by anyone for scrutiny by all and if passed by a majority of the world it would be implemented directly into the computer. Isn't that how true democracy should work?
While I would agree with the comparative intelligence part of this point here I would disagree that the “majority” would be the filter via which optimal computer alorythms are decided upon and implemented. For one thing its like asking the general population today what a heart surgeon or a neurologist should do. Noooooot very efficient or productive.
In the time it took soviet russia to make one car, modern technology can make a hell of a lot more, with far fewer people - and that is now, so imagine in 100, or 1000 years time. 500 years ago most of us were superstitious peasants plowing dirt by hand or by ox. Now we have nuclear fusion, container ships, desalination plants, hydroponics, 3D printing, you name it. 500 years from now, what is possible?
While technology progresses regardless of whatever eonomic model it evolves out of, I would completely agree. This isn’t a case of “the car that capitalism built” or “the car that socialism built”. That’s a red herring to attempt to tie the abilities of production to an economic model.
the Venus Project quote speaks volumes, I mean, what are we even talking about here? In what way is this a solution to any of the problems we currently face?
I can understand this assertion to a point, however NO problems are solved by dismissing innovations outright, merely because they don’t completely and optimally have their entire benefit in the immediate moment. I have this discussion with charity workers all the time. They stop me to tell me about their cause and I ask them what that would do to solve the root of the problem which no charity does. When I tell them about the results of addressing root causes they tend to revert to “well that’s all well and good but that’s way in the future, we need to do things like charity work in the meantime” as though we might as well give up any root cause analysis and seek to change the world MERELY by patchwork methods. Either that or the vague hope that someone else somewhere is doing all this for them and they don’t have to bother thinking about making these changes themselves. That’s lazy values at its worst.
Such as, the current severe inequalities in this world (your 1% Vs. the other 99%). Regardless, here is the thinking. If we wait another hundred or two hundred years or more, technology will fix everything.
This is not an assertion made by either TVP or TZM.
There will be an abundance of literally everything.
Neither is this an assertion made by either TVP or TZM.
So, I have a question here. Does this technical revolution come with a built in mechanism for the spontaneous reduction in the human population growth rate (and if you are going to attempt to answer this rhetorical question, I expect it to be backed up by some science)? Because at the moment projections for the growth rate are at doubling every forty years. Which means, that in just one hundred years time, that would put the human population at roughly forty-two billion. This number seems impractical, so let's say that there is some kind of upper limit, a carrying capacity. Let's arbitrarily set it at twenty billion (less than sixty years from now). Let's say that we hit this number, and we are bangin our heads against the wall killing each other to keep the pop. stabilized (kinda like the failed attempts in china but far more brutal). And then, this wonderful new tech comes down the line, which is going to make life on this planet easier for everyone. With this new tech, how long do you think it would take us to go from twenty billion to twenty one billion? This is not a solution.
Tell you what, shall I just start copy/pasting in previous answers I have given about this? Or is it ok if I ask you guys pay attention to my answers the first time I give them, absorb that knowledge then refne your questions according to the questions asked, and answered?
In the very near future we are going to be facing some serious problems were the fantasy of abundance runs head long into the reality of the insatiable expansion of humanity. When people look back, the world we are living in right now is going to seem like your Venus Project's utopia, and it's going to happen very quickly.
Not sure what backs this assertion up. But like I’ve said, both myself and other RBE advocates have already addressed this issue.
So, your argument for this is going to be "education". We are having a problem educating seven billion people. How hard is it going to be to educate twenty billion?
Because, the educational system is inhibited and corrupted by the monetry system and results in nothing more than a cookie-cutter process for creating mindless drones to keep the monetary system going? That’s not to mention the fact that money holds education back just like it holds everyting else back. As I have already explained, an RBE BENEFITS from people being smart and altruistic in their education and values. Having those values in a monetary system gets you labelled a “commie/fascist/hippie/utopian/dreamer etc.”.
I mean, we better get started right now. We don't have time to wait around for this tech miracle to happen.
I completely agree. The problem we face is not technological. Its concerned with values. We have the technological capability to enable an RBE tomorrow IF we had the correct values, which we don’t. So values are the only obstacle we face, but by the same token it’s the hardest obstacle to tackle.
And then, your next argument is going to be: "these problems, that your describing, are exactly what we are waiting for, to happen, In order to implement the Venus Project".
Rather arrogant and presumptuous to assume what someone’s arguments are gonna be. If you know so much about our suppositions, by all means I would LOVE to see/read/hear/watch you present you absolute best arguments to Jacque Fresco DIRECTLY and see how your knowledge of it compares to his.
Well, you think the dominating control of the 1% (I actually subscribe to the conspiracy theories about the illuminati and the NWO) is bad now. They are preparing for this. They have been now for more than forty years. They know the science and what is coming down the line. How do you expect to rest control of the system, from them, under these circumstances?we don't have the time to be resting on our laurels, or we are going to end up living in Orwell's "1984".
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever."
(George Orwell)
There’s one thing that allllll of this conspiracy theory implication rests upon. The given consent of the majority. If the majority do not consent, then what power do they have? None. Personally I don’t subscribe to the NOW conspiracy theories. But EVEN IF it were all true, what does that change about our goal and means to make the world a better place?
To combat this we need to have some practical solution that can be implemented, not wishful thinking about tech miracles.
There is nothing in either TZM or TVP’s material which suggests or even implies “wishful thinking about tech miracles”. That is a projection on your part probably due to an incomplete and biased understanding of what we actually propose.
You know what? I'm not going to go over the other Venus Project quote. I'm going to let it stand for itself, since no proposals have been put forth about how to accomplish any of it, it really is nothing but a joke. let's move on.
How convenient. Please refer to any “transition” material we have.
Let's touch on "planed obsolescence" for a moment.
Car makers build cars to not last too long and try to convince us (using status derived from desire to display wealth) that we have to have new ones every couple of years. Otherwise cars would be so abundant they would go out of business very quickly.
I would disagree. Planned obsolescence is to maximise circulation of currency. If you understand how GDP works, then you will know that goods and products built to last are detrimental to optimal GDP. THUS they have to be designed bad so the break quickly so that the consumer is forced to spend more money into the system in the form of either replacement purchase, repairs, upgrades or maintenance.
So, let's talk about "over engineering" and "value engineering."
Wiki:
Value engineering (VE) is a systematic method to improve the "value" of goods or products and services by using an examination of function. Value, as defined, is the ratio of function to cost. Value can therefore be increased by either improving the function or reducing the cost. It is a primary tenet of value engineering that basic functions be preserved and not be reduced as a consequence of pursuing value improvements.[1]
In the United States, value engineering is specifically spelled out in Public Law 104-106, which states “Each executive agency shall establish and maintain cost-effective value engineering procedures and processes." [2]
Value engineering is sometimes taught within the project management or industrial engineering body of knowledge as a technique in which the value of a system’s outputs is optimized by crafting a mix of performance (function) and costs. In most cases this practice identifies and removes unnecessary expenditures, thereby increasing the value for the manufacturer and/or their customers.
VE follows a structured thought process that is based exclusively on "function", i.e. what something "does" not what it is. For example a screw driver that is being used to stir a can of paint has a "function" of mixing the contents of a paint can and not the original connotation of securing a screw into a screw-hole. In value engineering "functions" are always described in a two word abridgment consisting of an active verb and measurable noun (what is being done - the verb - and what it is being done to - the noun) and to do so in the most non-prescriptive way possible. In the screw driver and can of paint example, the most basic function would be "blend liquid" which is less prescriptive than "stir paint" which can be seen to limit the action (by stirring) and to limit the application (only considers paint.) This is the basis of what value engineering refers to as "function analysis".[3]
Value engineering uses rational logic (a unique "how" - "why" questioning technique) and the analysis of function to identify relationships that increase value. It is considered a quantitative method similar to the scientific method, which focuses on hypothesis-conclusion approaches to test relationships, and operations research, which uses model building to identify predictive relationships.
Value engineering is also referred to as "value management" or "value methodology" (VM), and "value analysis" (VA).[4] VE is above all a structured problem solving process based on function analysis—understanding something with such clarity that it can be described in two words, the active verb and measurable noun abridgement. For example, the function of a pencil is to "make marks". This then facilitates considering what else can make marks. From a spray can, lipstick, a diamond on glass to a stick in the sand, one can then clearly decide upon which alternative solution is most appropriate.
Wiki:
Overengineering (or over-engineering) is when a product is more robust or complicated than necessary for its application, either (charitably) to ensure sufficient factor of safety, sufficient functionality, or due to design errors. Overengineering is desirable when safety or performance on a particular criterion is critical, or when extremely broad functionality is required, but it is generally criticized from the point of view of value engineering as wasteful. As a design philosophy, such overcomplexity is the opposite of the less is more school of thought (and hence a violation of the KISS principle and parsimony).
Overengineering generally occurs in high-end products or specialized market criteria, and takes various forms. In one form, products are overbuilt, and have performance far in excess of needs (a family sedan that can drive at 300 km/h, or a home video cassette recorder with a projected lifespan of 100 years), and hence are more expensive, bulkier, and heavier than necessary. Alternatively, they may be overcomplicated – the design may be far more complicated than is necessary for its use, such as a modern text editor asking whether files should be saved in ASCII or EBCDIC format. Overcomplexity reduces usability of the product by the end user, and can decrease productivity of the design team due to the need to build and maintain all the features.
A related issue is market segmentation – making different products for different market segments. In this context, a particular product may be more or less suited for a particular market segment, and may be over- or under- engineered relative to an application.
Second World War German tanks are typical examples of overengineered vehicles, which made them more expensive, fewer in number, more difficult to produce and heavier than their Soviet and Allied counterparts.
Ok, now that we have gone over that, we have a better Frame of reference. When we talk about planed obsolescence, there is a "practical limiting factor", the biggest of which is advancing technology. For instance, let's take the example of the video recorder, from the wiki quote "overengineering".
home video cassette recorder with a projected lifespan of 100 years
How ridiculous does that sound? a video "cassette" recorder with a lifespan of 100 years. When was the last time you saw anyone using a cassette. I don't know, can you even buy cassettes anymore? With the speed at which tech advances most things in our day to day lives fall into this category and have relatively short life spans, or "practical limiting factors".
Of course electronics have a high intrinsic obsolescence rate due to how quickly they evolve so pursuing a level of lifespan longer than the projected rate of its evolution is inefficient. Instead what should be sought is means to design electronics with universal enclosures, interfaces and interchangeable parts to they can be quickly and easily upgraded without having to throw out entire devices purely due to the obsolescence of one part. Old obsolete or broken parts are also recycled as best as possible to mine for the resources used to make them.
Another practical limiting factor, is "practical use" (as opposed to advancing tech) for instance let's take computers for example. Computers have been around since the nineteen-forties, but didn't make a break through, into the private market until the early eighties. At that time (forties) it took a room the size of a high-school gym worth of components to perform the calculations that a pocket calculator (smaller than a credit card) could perform today (actually, I here they are starting to attach components to house flies in order to control them remotely, huh, could you imagine: RC fly; what will they think of next).
Let's take a more relevant example for "practical use": compact discs . A fact, not all that many people know, is that the tech behind CD's was invented in 1976. back then they were called laser disks. In the very early eighties this tech tried, unsuccessfully, to break into the private market. The disks were larger than vinyl records, and the players were cumbersome. No body was interested in this tech despite its superior sound quality. So, it went away, for more than a decade. It finally had a resurgence in the mid to late nineties. The tech had been vastly improved, made more compact (hence, compact disc) and everyone flocked to it in droves, consequently, retiring cassettes from the market completely.
And you know what further step has been taken in this millenium? The digitising of audio and video data combined with the ability to send it from one location to another. The reason why so many game and music retailers are going out of business is because of the availability and efficiency of downloads. The only reason why downloading is “illegal” is because it threatens the profittability of every industry connected with the mass production of multiple discs which contain musical and cinematic works which can be FAR more efficiently distributed and enjoyed electronically, and for free. That’s the main reason why music outlets such as HMV are now providing services such as “Download Codes” so they can still make money from the efficient transfer of electrons which used to be done by the manufacture of a plastic disc endowed with the digitised data. How much resources are wasted by industries hanging onto the obsolete practise of manufacturing and selling of disgustingly multiple plastic discs, plastic cases and plastic/paper inlays when it can all exist as electrons on your computer?
A similar argument can be made about high def/wide screen TV's.
So, these are the kind of things that we are dealing with when we consider most technologies. Most other technologies that fall outside this category are just fine (I know that I have had my microwave for more than ten years now and there doesn't seem to be any problems there).
Planned obsolescence mainly came into industry in its full force about 20 years ago. And even then some companies refused to stoop to that level. However the monetary success of business who do operate with planned obsolescence have forced that incentive upon other companies who wish to be able to compete.
Now, I want you to answer this question honestly. When was the last time that you truly felt like you were a victim of planed obsolescence?
As we speak I am using a laptop which is designed to break and become obsolete quickly. So yea, right now.
Cars:
There are a lot of factors that are involved with this one, and I am going to try to cover them all as well as I can. Cars are somewhat of a technological anomaly in this respect. This is because, if you could make a car that could last a thousand years it would still be useful, regardless of the technology that was used to construct it. It is a transport. The only thing that matters is that it functions the way it was intended to. There are other anomalies, as well. Cars function by using high energy combustion engines, and, as per the second law of thermal dynamics, the more energy one puts into a system the more quickly it degrades. This also involves contact with the road/tires, axles, drive shafts, and any other moving components. One cannot get around this problem by switching from combustion to electric. In fact several members of my immediate family are expert car mechanics (one of my brothers has about 25 years experience and my father has about 35 years experience; before that he was a helicopter mechanic for the military for about twelve years). What my dad is saying, is that, as far as life expectancies go, so far, they are having some real problems with the electric engines burning up. Which is to be expected, as I said "second law". So, one can somewhat get around this by using exotic materials to construct a car. An example of this would be NASCAR race cars:
From an official website:
From the ground up, including the engine, a race-ready Nextel Cup car costs about $125,000 to build
Take into consideration how alterantive propulsion technologies threaten the profitability of the oil industry and all the other industries that profit and thus exist due to the widespread use of the internal combustion engine.
Side point: Could you imagine trying to construct seven billion of these?
You wouldn’t need to. Is it efficient to even conceive of EVERYONE having their own car, in the face of mag-lev train technology? No contest in my view.
These cars can last a long time under some pretty heavy abuses. Imagine how long it would last if you just drove it like a regular car. You could probably literally drive one of these things your entire life, if you took proper care of it, The problem is, at 125,000 resources, sorry, I mean dollars, who can afford this.
This supposition doesn’t apply to anything either TVP or TZM proposes.
I think that is enough on planed obsolescence. So I'm am going to wrap this up. Is there potential for abusing value engineering in the form of planed obsolescence? Yes. Is it as bad as you or the Venus Project are making it out to be? No.
I would disagree. Remind yourself next time you’re sat in a car doing 75 down the motorway that the machine you’re sat in is deliberately designed to break and/or become obsolete so that industries can exist to make money. Not only that, but the very staple of having mobile machines capable of triple digit speeds that are a deadly weapon in the wrong hands… is entrusted to an imperfect human being for the machine’s operation. How inefficient is that? How many RTAs can be flat out erradicated by enabling self-drive systems?
Let continue on.
This has pretty much already been covered. First you need to prove that there can be abundance. I don't think that it can be done, but I am open to any science or rational arguments supporting your claim.
You overlook a very important difference between the terminology we use, and the terminology you THINK we are using. We advocate ACCESS abundance. I have repeated this to you several times, and like a child shoving his fingers in his ears you repeatedly refuse to absorb this information and carry on proporting that we are claiming an even more disgusting level of multiplicity than today.
This misunderstanding of our terminology forms a foundational part of your central argument against an RBE. I don’t know how difficult this is to get through your skull. Seriously.
Saying that this is exactly the same as soviet russia is not valid - there was no abundance, no automation.
That’s part of the reason why they failed. What motivated and fascilitated that proposal was a reshuffeling of what we have right now. The same faeces, just a different shade. We have technological and scientific methods and means now that dwarf the potential of previous efforts. That’s what distinguishes an RBE from any other proposed model. Coz its based upon the use of innovations, technologies and understandings that DIDN’T EXIST back then.
That is exactly what it is. Its a flavor of marxisum. it's marxism with robots. I don't understand where this disagreement is coming from.
LMAO! And you were saying you WEREN’T a “Stefan groupie” when “marxism with robots ”is EXACTLY his criticism against an RBE. It seems you are merely parroting what he has said without even knowing what it means and implies.
Now, shall we apply the same logic to something else and see what that implies? Let’s take a regular member of society. Hard working, moral and lives a good life. Now we have a savage serial killer. Now, the “marxism with robots” fallacy is trying to imply that an RBE IS marxism, except just “with robots” as though this very pivotal difference, which by the way invalidates any supposition of marxism itself, is implying that despite the difference, because you have lumped them together, they are the same thing. And to imply that would be to imply that the moral and upstanding member of society is “a serial killer without the homocidal tendencies”. But obviously there is a VERY established and distinct line between the ordinary person and the serial killer. Thus, the supposition that an RBE is “marxism with robots” falls flat on its face.
I sorry man but I gotta rap this thing up. If you are interested in these ideas, look into the materials I suggested. Then, if you still have problems afterward, we can debate it more then.
I hope you enjoyed reading this, and I'll be looking forward to your response.
I find it quite interesting that you have whinged so loudly that I have referred you to perform your own research… and yet you also refer people to do their own research, but as a means to not address anything in a very poignant response that is difficult for someone who seemingly blindly follows the doctrine of Stefan Molyneux to refute.
I hope this is a satisfactory response and that we can now move ON with more productive discussion. | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 7/22/2012 11:47:40 AM | gingerosity:
Hay man I want to use you as my litmus test. Because, to me, this guy seems like he is religiously attached to these ideas, in that, he believes and has faith in them, and I don't think that there is any evidence or aurguments that I could put to him that would pull him out of it, and if this is the case it is pointless and an extreme waste of my time (since it will take me quite a while to respond) for me to continue. So, here is my question to you: did his response to message 160 do anything for you? Do you feel that I need to respond? I'm looking for an unbiased opinion here, which I am pretty sure you could deliver. Because to me his response is just more of the same, and all that I am going to be doing is elaborating.
Thanks in advance ging. | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 7/22/2012 12:14:15 PM |
gingerosity:
Hay man I want to use you as my litmus test. Because, to me, this guy seems like he is religiously attached to these ideas, in that, he believes and has faith in them,
LMAO! Wow, what astounding projection. You obviously don't even know what faith actually means in this context when I'm proposing a diametrically opposed method of analysis; The Scientific Method. In the words of Tim Minchin:
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed, faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."
The fact that I demand evidentiary support completely invalidates any supposition that I orient my world view based on faith. Just because you have completely failed in providing evidence for your suppositions and I have refuted whatever OPINIONS you pose instead, that doesn't mean I rely on "faith".
I can understand if you are becoming frustrated in your inability to refute the information I am giving, but it is intellectually dishonest of you to put out even more ad hominem attacks.
and I don't think that there is any evidence or aurguments that I could put to him that would pull him out of it,
Considering you havent even bothered to try, that's very prejudicial.
and if this is the case it is pointless and an extreme waste of my time (since it will take me quite a while to respond) for me to continue.
Then don't respond. Simple as that. If you seriously cannot keep your cool and cannot bear your opinions and baseless claims being refuted then you shouldn't have started this "debate".
So, here is my question to you: did his response to message 160 do anything for you? Do you feel that I need to respond? I'm looking for an unbiased opinion here, which I am pretty sure you could deliver. Because to me his response is just more of the same, and all that I am going to be doing is elaborating.
Thanks in advance ging.
Howabout you make up your own mind, considering that you disregard anything contrary to your own world view as "rhetoric" then I would advise that you don't bother. Coz you have already demonstrated your shameful lack of knowledge about some of the most basic tenets of what TZM & TVP advocates, and yet, claim to know what it advocates and even further claim to be able to debunk it. | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 7/22/2012 1:21:02 PM | Adam:
The Scientific Method.
Why don't you try it. I can scientifically account for the logistics involve in the distribution of technologies (such as the iPhone) in the socital system that I propose, down to the most minute detail, and I can provide examples of this methidology actually work in lrage scale real world applications (something that I have done on a very limited basis in the "what would a perfect world look like" thread, but could elaborate if nessesary - and this is a rock solid fact). So far all you offered on the matter is, *paraphrase* "oh it will work like a library". So until you actually offer up some scientific evidence, you really shouldn't keep on acting as though you have. Your just making yourself look more and more ridiculous.
Also, if i do respond to your message I will not be responding to you (since it is apparent in the extreme that you haven't any thing to offer on the matter). I will be responding to any literature you can provide me with from people in your "movement" who actualy know what the hell they are talking about, if that is some thing that indeed exists. I have had enough of you. | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 7/22/2012 1:52:53 PM | First off I like the fact that you have chosen to only quote three words. look dude, I can tell this getting rather futile. Because you are arguing this case so fervently and so emotionally that I'm starting to feel sorry for you. Look, if you disagree with a train of thought, that's cool. If you try and debate or even discuss a train of thought and try to prove its flaws etc. then there is a burden of research you will need to fulfill. You have demonstrated time and time again that you are dead wrong about SOOOOO many aspects of what an RBE is about and if you wish to be taken seriously on this thread you should act in a mature manner. If you find yourself in the wrong, or realise you've made a logical fallacy or if an argument on your part fails, then be a man and admit it. You don't start whinging like a child, saying insulting things to, and about the person presenting information to you. THAT'S what makes some of your tactisc ad hominem. Because you are so emotionally invested in having your world view proven above all else that you cry "rhetoric" at anything that you cannot refute. That's intellectually dishonest. Anyways, on with my response.
Why don't you try it. I can scientifically account for the logistics involve in the distribution of technologies (such as the iPhone) in the socital system that I propose, down to the most minute detail (something that I have done on a very limited basis in the "what would a perfect world look like" thread, but could elaborate if nessesary - and this is a rock solid fact).
And what kind of system do you propose exactly? And mre to the point, will you be able to cope with the level of debate and pickiness that you have attempted to apply to an RBE? Because you STILL haven't been able to tell me how a "sound" currency backed by gold will not simply evolve back into fractional currency for what would be the second time in history. You've only said that gold currency isn't fractional currency. well duh, we both know that. You need to tell me what, besides totalitarian legislation, will stop that gold currency becoming fractional currency yet again.
So far all you offered on the matter is, *paraphrase* "oh it will work like a library". So until you actually offer up some scientific evidence, you really shouldn't keep on acting as though you have. Your just making yourself look more and more ridiculous.
I have already explained how the distributon centres would work. For further information maybe you can actually do some of your own research into our materials, which you claim to already have done, which makes your asking of this a bit telling that you actually HAVEN'T done any research. If you want to dismiss it like you have dismissed nearly everything else, that's your lookout.
Also, if i do respond to your message I will not be responding to you (since it is apparent in the extreme that you haven't any thing to offer on the matter). I will be responding to any literature you can provide me with from people in your "movement" who actualy know what the hell they are talking about, if that is some thing that indeed exists. I have had enough of you.
Well at least you're part of the way there. You can find all the literature you need at the following websites:
www.thezeitgeistmovement.com
www.blog.thezeitgeistmovement.com
These sites also feature a recommended reading list as well. Have fun, and let me know when you actually DO know what we advocate. | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 7/22/2012 2:28:24 PM | You've only said that gold currency isn't fractional currency.
Oh my god *begins to pull his hair out in clumps* I have never once mention anything about gold. You lying %#@$.
The truth is you haven't the slightest clue what it is that I am proposing. Why don't you take a little of you own advice and read some of Stefan Molyneux's books before you profess to know what I am proposing (they are free at freedomainradio.com/free) I have at least: 1. Watched all three zeitgeist films 2. Watched many iterviews with Peter and jacque 3. Went over to the venus projects website looking for more information of which I did not find. What the @&$% have you done.
You are the one who started with the talking down to people and insults first @$$hole. So why don't you take some responsibility for that sh!t.
Man you're really stating to piss me off. But I think that that has been your goal from the beginning. And your calling me dishonest, pfft. | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 7/22/2012 2:55:41 PM | Oh my god *begins to pull his hair out in clumps* I have never once mention anything about gold. You lying %#@$.
You know what I said about you getting too emotional here? This is is. Take, a chill pill. Ok? Tis is no place for your petty emotional reactions. You have spoken in previous threads about how a gold backed currency would be sound. I asked you what would stop this currency evolving back into fractional currency and you equivocated by simply explaining that gold backed currency is not fractional currency. Don't you remember this?
The truth is you haven't the slightest clue what it is that I am proposing.
Well for starters you haven't actually proposed anything besides parrot some of Stefan Molyneux's rhetoric about an RBE "marxism with robots" which by the way you still haven't justified.
Why don't you take a little of you own advice and read some of Stefan Molyneux's books before you profess to know what I am proposing (they are free at freedomainradio.com/free)
Do you remember me saying when I first mentioned Stefan Molyneux that I think he's an awesome guy. And I have viewed a lot of his stuff. I actually think a lot of libertarian and anarchism has validity. I just disagree with how it can be applied. You seem to think that an indicator for knowing about something, is agreeing with it. Well I also know what Mein Kampf describes. Doesn't mean I agree with it. lol
Coz for one thing, Stefan Molyneux proposes the Austrian economics supposition of the "economic calculation problem" which has no logical basis. I have already explained on this hread and others how the economic calculation problem has no basis.
I have at least: 1. Watched all three zeitgeist films 2. Watched many iterviews with Peter and jacque 3. Went over to the venus projects website looking for more information of which I did not find. What the @&$% have you done.
Did you watch them in your sleep or something? Coz by the questions you ask you appear as completely clueless. A few red flags that come to mind in this regard:
1, you thought an RBE was about limiting or stopping technological progress
2, you thought that it was proposing giving every human being an iPhone and a car
3, you don't know how the value system works
4, you don't know how the distribution centres work
These alone would denote to me that even if you have viewed all these materials, its all gone in one ear and out the other. Probably because you have dismissed it all as "rhetoric" as per your usual tactic. And when I show you how inaccurate your "knowledge" of these proposals are, you simply can't BEAR it and start screaming, shouting, insulting, projecting and getting emotional.
You are the who started with the talking down to people and insults first @$$hole.
LMAO! You try to imply insults on my part, WITH an insult attached? I would LOVE to see you prove that I have called you any names like these *waits and falls asleep while waiting*
So why don't you take some responsibility for that sh!t.
I'm not the one swearing my head off and getting emotional all because of a failed set of misinformed arguments. I don't have to take responsibility for how you have chosen to start getting upset. Howabout you grow up and leave emotion at the door?
Man you're really stating to piss me off. But I think that that has been your goal from the beginning. And your calling me dishonest, pfft.
Awwwww, I'm so sorry that being held to task for proving your case has got you hot under the collar. This is somehing I'm qite used to when people who try their absolute best to try to refute an BE with their doomed arguments, and when I reveal how inaccurate they are to begin with even about what an RBE is and what TM & TVP proposes, they react by getting very angry. I'm sorry that this situation has got you angry. But that is your own issues that is causing you to become upset when people don't concede to your world view. | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 7/22/2012 3:17:02 PM | Like I've said I've had enough of you. I just waiting for ging's response. After that I may post on here one more time. So good luck keeping this thread alive in my absence (as you can see you don't have many fans in this forum) and then, after I am gone, I imagin you and this thread will vanish like a fart in the wind.
And for the record, I never made any statement about gold. Why don't you chech the facts. I know that that is difficult for you but give it a try. | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 7/22/2012 3:19:06 PM | Thanks Adam for taking the time to respond to msg 160 from the "What would a perfect world look like" thread.
So, here is my question to you: did his response to message 160 do anything for you? Do you feel that I need to respond?
Well it is really up to you what you do with your time, but certainly I'd be interested to read polite, rational debate about this stuff.
For me it looks like Adam is saying that rather than having to drastically increase supply it will be possible to substantially decrease demand through things like the library model and public transport, and therefore access abundance is in fact possible.
My question is: have there been any calculations or experiments done to demonstrate such ideas will actually create and maintain 'access abundance' (supply>>>demand) in all necessary areas of life for all people forever after? | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 7/22/2012 3:22:40 PM | Like I've said I've had enough of you. I just waiting for ging's response. After that I may post on here one more time. So good luck keeping this thread alive in my absence (as you can see you don't have many fans in this forum) and then, after I am gone, I imagin you and this thread will vanish like a fart in the wind.
And for the record, I never made any statement about gold. Why don't you chech the facts. I know that that is difficult for you but give it a try. | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 7/22/2012 3:41:49 PM |
Like I've said I've had enough of you. I just waiting for ging's response. After that I may post on here one more time. So good luck keeping this thread alive in my absence (as you can see you don't have many fans in this forum) and then, after I am gone, I imagin you and this thread will vanish like a fart in the wind.
Oh wow, how mature and non-dramatic. lol
And for the record, I never made any statement about gold. Why don't you chech the facts. I know that that is difficult for you but give it a try.
Actually, after trying to find the comment itself, through two extensive threads and interracting with 3 individuals all proposing the same arguments more or less, I apologise, since I think it was Jiperly who instead made that argument about gold backed currencies. Its so hard to tell between both of your positions, they're so similar. lol. So I should give you something to jump up and down screaming with victory, you ready?...I admit I was wrong about the gold issue. There you go. I know that's gonna mean a lot to you. Maybe you can learn to also admit when you're wrong as well. Its an empowering thing.
Would you like to also go back and check your facts and admit that you were wrong as well? If you like I can point you to the exact things. :) | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 7/22/2012 3:59:02 PM |
Well it is really up to you what you do with your time, but certainly I'd be interested to read polite, rational debate about this stuff.
I agree. I have no patience to allow the logical fallacies and inaccuracies of those who don't know abot TZM to pass me by. So I call them out on it. When someone is knowledgeable about it and asks mature questions, wow, I love that. Coz then we can both learn.
For me it looks like Adam is saying that rather than having to drastically increase supply it will be possible to substantially decrease demand through things like the library model and public transport, and therefore access abundance is in fact possible.
You're actually very, very close. Add to that the rationalle for why demand is lowered, that being the knowledge that we have needs that should be met, and we don't have the right to demand more than what is socially acceptable in terms of resources. Its pure common sense and having consideration for others, then you got it. :)
In our current system, demand is artificially generated through marketting and advertising, coz those companies need to make you feel like if you don't buy their product you will be less of a person yada yada. A child who goes into a supermarket with their parents and says "Daddy I want those!" as she picks up a box of cereal or something but she doesn't want the product for the cereal. It could even be a cereal she hates the taste of. She wants it coz it has her favourite cartoon character branded on it, or she has seen an advert or some product placement which has implanted the blind desire for that product in her mind. There's a very interesting documentary on this subject called "Consuming Kids: The Commercialisation of Childhood".
My question is: have there been any calculations or experiments done to demonstrate such ideas will actually create and maintain 'access abundance' (supply>>>demand) in all necessary areas of life for all people forever after?
Very good question actually. And a tough one. I suppose my answer to that would be that the systems required for an RBE already exist and are already used everyday. Just separated and operate in microcosmic ways. The trick is to unify these processes. Bring them together with the goal of global sustainability. :)
When you say forever after, you mean from now till the end of time? I personally don't think the huan race will last for an eternity, I mean that would make us the first species in the history of the universe to last that long. But, you never kno, we might be the first of a series of species who somehow manage to outlive others. But, I'm not a prophet. I can't say how long anything will last but the human race all working together towards the goal of sustainability and harmony is a good place to start, right?
You see CressB? Just be mature and ask logical questions, not to mention be receptive, and things go so much smoother. :) | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 7/22/2012 4:47:26 PM | Ging:
Ok, this is not response I said I'd give. This is just me venting.
but certainly I'd be interested to read polite, rational debate about this stuff.
You've debated with me before. You know that I am usually polite and rational. But this guy man! It pisses me off that he does so much talking down to people. And this is not just my opinion two others (the only two others that have ingaged this individual in debat on this thread) have expressed the same view. He refuses to make a detailed explanation about how the distribution of good to the populous will work, or offer any science to support his claims, and states only that *paraphrase* "it will work". I mean sh!t man how ridiculous is that.
My question is: have there been any calculations or experiments done to demonstrate such ideas will actually create and maintain 'access abundance'
This is also my question, though, I have others, like:
What evidence is there that people will accept this library system. What about the people who need to have certain technologies on a perminant basis as opposed to having to turn them in to the library so someone else can use them. This seem unfair to those who have to turn their stuff in. Will the people accept this (I don't think they will and I can tell you that I am not ok with it). If they will not, then how is any of this supposed to work.
I still think that it is impossible to even create an "acces abundance" of the thousands of technologies that exist for seven billion people. It certainly does not exist today. To take the iPhone example again there has only been a little over one hundred million iPhones produced so far. This is most certainly not an "acces abundance". So what needs to be done? More iPhones need to be created hundreds and hundreds of millions of iPhones at least and that is only if the people will accept being limited to an "acces abundance". I mean what about artist: who gets the guitars full timeand all the other nessesary equipment. Film makers who gets the film equipment and who decide who gets the resources necessary to make high end movies, and who decides this and why. What about the scientists if we have several scientist whith vertualy identical credentials, in need of full time access to scarce and valuable equipmentfor different or even opposing research. Who is to decide who is to get the equipment, and why should these scientists be ok with this with tis decision. What about the entrepreneurs/inventors who is to determine which people will get the resources they need to make these long shot endeavors, which the majority of the time, don't pan out, but when they do they they often have the effect of radically changing the world.
I could go on and on and on like this for many pages worth of text. This kind of stuff needs to be addressed in fine detail it needs to be shown that it can work in real world applications. It needs to be tested and retested and the tested again. But to my knowledge none of this has been done.
I am of the position that it will not work. But this does not mean that I am going to stand in the way of anyone who wants to proceed with testing. It just means that I am going in the direction of idea that I think will work. And then this guy is telling me that *paraphrae* "oh that is fine howere you should know that the ideas you are in favor of are wrong"
I mean what the hell man. Can I see some credentials or at least a detailed credible argument that supports the assertion. I could make make that same claim about the zeitgeist movement but that doesn't make my statement true. I mean it's absurd.
Anyway, I'm still pretty pissed off. I'm not sure if I want to invest the time that would be necessary to make an adequate respons let me think it over. If I do respond it will probably take me about a week or so to compose my response. So if you do see a post by me then, then you'll know what I decided. | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 7/22/2012 5:42:26 PM |
Ok, this is not response I said I'd give. This is just me venting.
Well don't. This isnt the appropriate place for you to vent at people for your own personal frustrations.
You've debated with me before. You know that I am usually polite and rational. But this guy man! It pisses me off that he does so much talking down to people.
Oh, I know, having someone not bow to your incomplete knowledge and biased opinion and the fact that they call you out for logical fallacies and baseless claims really sucks, doesn't it?
Get over it. Stop shooting the messenger and concern yourself with the message itself. I have provided you with links to a cornucopia of data on the subject.
And this is not just my opinion two others (the only two others that have ingaged this individual in debat on this thread) have expressed the same view.
And considering they are both as uninformed on the subject not to mention as unreceptive to it as you are, I'm not suprised.
He refuses to make a detailed explanation about how the distribution of good to the populous will work, or offer any science to support his claims, and states only that *paraphrase* "it will work". I mean sh!t man how ridiculous is that.
No, I just refuse to repeat myself. And let me ask you a question that you really should ask yourself:
Why do you have to paraphrase people instead of absorbing what they have to say in order to be able to understand what they are saying?
This is also my question, though, I have others, like:
What evidence is there that people will accept this library system.
You provide someone who has a low standard of living with the means to live well and chances are they will accept it in the sense that they will be grateful for it and partake of the means of living. A baby presented with a bottle or breast when thirsty will feed. This has been demonstrated time and time again through human history. But, they don't have to accept an RBE. As I have stated a few times, its not mandatory.
What about the people who need to have certain technologies on a perminant basis as opposed to having to turn them in to the library so someone else can use them. This seem unfair to those who have to turn their stuff in. Will the people accept this (I don't think they will and I can tell you that I am not ok with it). If they will not, then how is any of this supposed to work.
Then that is an empirical life need for that person. Duh. Did you think that people would have to take turns on wheelchairs and life-support machines? LMAO!!!!
I still think that it is impossible to even create an "acces abundance" of the thousands of technologies that exist for seven billion people.
Ahhhh, so you have finally listened to the difference between your assumption that we plan to give everyone on the planet a car and an iPhone, to recognising that we minimise the need to overproduce and create only what would cover demand + a certain contingency over. However, you are probably disagreeing still because you are not factoring into your thinking the fact that the VAST majority of products produced, thus used and hense seemingly required in society, are actually produced for the benefit of currency circulation and the companies involved in their design, manufacture, distribution, sale, disposal and repair. Allllll monetary considerations and mechanisms.
It certainly does not exist today.
Exactly. If every single person on the planet consumed at the rate of the average american civilian, we would need 2 Earths to sustain the population. You see that wanon consumption and the production of self-serving products is a huge game to create profit and isn't needed, and we can actually provide an INTELLIGENT level of supply for an INTELLIGENT orientation of demand.
To take the iPhone example again there has only been a little over one hundred million iPhones produced so far. This is most certainly not an "acces abundance". So what needs to be done? More iPhones need to be created hundreds and hundreds of millions of iPhones at least and that is only if the people will accept being limited to an "acces abundance".
Please, stop thinking within a monetary frame of reference. I have already said, NOT EVERYONE will want an iPhone. I don't actually own any apple products. But if you think about it, is an iPhone REALLY essential for human life?
I mean what about artist: who gets the guitars full timeand all the other nessesary equipment.
Wow. For someone who has done SO much research into TZM & TVP's material, you sure don't know much. For goods that are needed on a regular basis, someone can keep it if they want, HOWEVER the understanding is that it is on them to lug it around with them. If you knew TZM's stance on private property, then you'll know that it is considered a burden. Because it is far more efficient and hassel free to make use of what you need, WHEN you need to use it. This is clearly outlined in the Activist Orientation video and in both Addendum and Moving Forward. If you claim to have watched them, then how come you still don't understand this?
Film makers who gets the film equipment and who decide who gets the resources necessary to make high end movies, and who decides this and why.
And THIS, my friend is the nail in the coffin for convincing me that you haven't done diddly-squat research into these proposals, because Peter Joseph is a film-maker himself and has on numerous occasions remarked on this very issue.
What about the scientists if we have several scientist whith vertualy identical credentials, in need of full time access to scarce and valuable equipmentfor different or even opposing research.
Do scientists transport all the equipment and machines they use back and forth to the lab every day in our current system? Of course not. The equipment is stored in the lab. In fact some equipment needs to be stored in the lab.
Who is to decide who is to get the equipment, and why should these scientists be ok with this with tis decision.
With every single one of these questions you're showing more and more how less and less you actually know about these proposals. Because one thing that we remark quite a lot in TZM is that people are very stuck in the paradigm of asking WHO decides this, and WHO decides that. If you were familiar at all at least on the most basic level, in fact one of the FIRST things I learnt about an RBE, is, as we say all the time, its not about who makes the decisions, but how the decisions are arrived at.
What about the entrepreneurs/inventors who is to determine which people will get the resources they need to make these long shot endeavors, which the majority of the time, don't pan out, but when they do they they often have the effect of radically changing the world. Ay ay ay, you really haven't watched the material you claim to have watched, have you? I could go on and on and on like this for many pages worth of text. Oh I don't doubt that at all. An absense of any knowledge of what these proposals consists of can do that to you. This kind of stuff needs to be addressed in fine detail it needs to be shown that it can work in real world applications. It needs to be tested and retested and the tested again. But to my knowledge none of this has been done. Well for someone who claims to have viewed a lot of TZM's materials you sure don't sound like it. I do agree that it needs to be tested though. That's what the Global Redesign Institute is for. *gasp* what's that I hear you ask! lol I am of the position that it will not work. Of course. That's because you are completely clueless to it. Your lack of knowledge and padestrian questions demonstrate this. But this does not mean that I am going to stand in the way of anyone who wants to proceed with testing. It just means that I am going in the direction of idea that I think will work. I'm pleased to hear that. And then this guy is telling me that *paraphrae* "oh that is fine howere you should know that the ideas you are in favor of are wrong" Here we go again with the biased, baseless and ignorant paraphrasing. I mean what the hell man. Can I see some credentials or at least a detailed credible argument that supports the assertion. I could make make that same claim about the zeitgeist movement but that doesn't make my statement true. I mean it's absurd. Wow, I DEFINATELY know for sure you certainly haven't watched Moving Forward. The amount of credentialled people in that documentary will make that assertion preeeeeeetty silly. Anyway, I'm still pretty pissed off. awwwww. *hugs* I'm not sure if I want to invest the time that would be necessary to make an adequate respons let me think it over. If I do respond it will probably take me about a week or so to compose my response. So if you do see a post be me then, then you'll know what I decided. That's very good actually. I'm serious. I don't want you to rush into a response. I would prefer it if it was considered, researched, informed, and most importantly, absent of an emotional charge. please, take all the time you like. It gives you plenty of time to actually absorb TZM's material, then you can come back and ask some questions with the view of clarification of information that you have already learnt about an RBE instead of introductory questions. No hard feelings dude. I just ask for people to know their stuff if they hope to discuss this. Take care and I'll chat to you again when you come back on. :) | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 7/23/2012 7:25:26 AM | Well things looked good for a while but appear to be degenerating again. Maybe a referee would help, but some of us are in the wrong hemisphere and have wage-slavery to do. It is a shame because I think we can all agree that we are interested in discussing this stuff because we want to understand how the world can become a better place - because we care. All I can offer that may aid your communications are some quotes from wise people that have helped me in the past:
Zhuangzi:
Great wisdom is generous; petty wisdom is contentious.
To be truly ignorant, be content with your own knowledge.
Gandhi:
When restraint and courtesy are added to strength, the latter becomes irresistible.
Without much forthcoming in the way of calculations and testing on access abundance, TZM/TVP don't appear to me to be really well supported propositions at this stage. Perhaps there is support we don't yet know about or that will be put forth soon after small-scale versions are tried?
The thing that has struck me about TZM/TVP and voluntaryist anarcho-capitalism is that there is a lot in common. Both want to get rid of the state as we know it, both seek to build a society based on moral values, both embrace technology, both are about giving people more of a chance of true freedom and both come from a desire to do good for the future people of the world.
CressB - correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think Stefan Molyneux has said that really the only way to allow people to live in a truly moral and free society is through promoting good parenting - to free people from psychological problems brought about by childhood abuse and neglect, and give them the opportunity to think and learn in a happy, supportive environment. Only then will they be able to apply the things like rational secular ethics to their lives that are necessary for changing society for the better in the long run.
I haven't seen it mentioned in TZM/TVP, but I would suppose that in a knowledge-based society with the kind of community values necessary to support it that there would also have to be a focus on promoting good parenting in a very similar way to the anarcho-capitalist alternative. If so, it would seem that the conclusion of this debate about the feasibility of the particular societal models can probably wait a few generations while more data comes in and the initial -shared- stage of promoting good parenting is well underway.
Adam does that inter-generational psychological improvement stuff come up in TZM? Do you think that there is significant overlap in how to improve the world, at least in the initial stages? | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 7/23/2012 1:39:34 PM | Lol thank you for backing me up Cress- unfortunately, a quick examination of Adam's response has something that made me stop reading altogether.
They demanded examples.
They are unwilling to offer explanations and examples and proof of their claims, believing everything they say is self-evident, but should anyone offer a dissenting opinion, they need to back up their claims, or they are simply wrong.
It's childish, really.
One simple question for you Adam; If you truly believe such a system is possible- why haven't you or your fellow "Zeitgeist Movement" people started setting up camp? I know of a group of Mennonites who, when fearing the draft during the first world war, fled to Mexico and, together, bought a huge tract of land, and lived as they saw fit.
Why don't you start, and prove us wrong? Why can you only offer ideas, but nothing tangible? | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 7/24/2012 3:31:40 AM | Well by all means we can continue the discussion in his abscence.
Without much forthcoming in the way of calculations and testing on access abundance, TZM/TVP don't appear to me to be really well supported propositions at this stage. Perhaps there is support we don't yet know about or that will be put forth soon after small-scale versions are tried?
Absolutely. However we need to appreciate that there are 2 main elements to this. 1 TZM is extremely young in terms of the context of social movements. Despite its embryonic youth it has grown far faster than any social movement in the history of humanity. And 2. We call for a change that has never been proposed before. These 2 things call for patience and co-operation. Not impatience and apathy.
Like I have already stated these systems aleady exist and already work. The only problem is they are separated and work in of themselves in microcosmic ways. Its about bringing these systems together.
If you go to a science & technology news aggregate site called zeitnews.org you will be blown away by the potentials that exist. Technologically, we've got this in the bag. The only hurdle is our value systems.
The thing that has struck me about TZM/TVP and voluntaryist anarcho-capitalism is that there is a lot in common. Both want to get rid of the state as we know it, both seek to build a society based on moral values, both embrace technology, both are about giving people more of a chance of true freedom and both come from a desire to do good for the future people of the world.
That is true to a point, however anarco-capitalism still wishes to perpetuate monetary systems. When we truly embrace tehnology, we find the ability to provide for people and to enable them to be released from the slavery of meaningless work and into meaningful, active and positive participation, and thus, the lack of a need for monetary systems.
I haven't seen it mentioned in TZM/TVP, but I would suppose that in a knowledge-based society with the kind of community values necessary to support it that there would also have to be a focus on promoting good parenting in a very similar way to the anarcho-capitalist alternative. If so, it would seem that the conclusion of this debate about the feasibility of the particular societal models can probably wait a few generations while more data comes in and the initial -shared- stage of promoting good parenting is well underway.
Adam does that inter-generational psychological improvement stuff come up in TZM? Do you think that there is significant overlap in how to improve the world, at least in the initial stages?
Absolutely. If you go to the website that a good friend of mine in TZM created called tzmedcation.org you will find that we actually do emphasise a great deal on good parenting and relevant formative education as the foundation of critical thinking, effective communication and altruistic values.
James Phillips, who I've had on my podcast show twice already has also done 2 significant seminars on this topic. One at last year's London ZDay event, the other at this year's Vancouver Zday event. | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 7/24/2012 4:13:52 AM |
Lol thank you for backing me up Cress- unfortunately, a quick examination of Adam's response has something that made me stop reading altogether.
And right there you have your problem. Because of your impatience and ignorance you are giving up. Well if that’s really the case, don’t bother anymre with this thread. Don’t letch around criticising when you can’t even be bothered to hear people out because they’re not IMMEDIATELY ringing your dnner bell.
They demanded examples.
Examples are everywhere. Can you prove that bringing wonderfully innovative systems together to work synergistically would completely fail? Do you think technology can only exist on the small scale, but when you bring these pieces together to form a much better puzle it all falls apart?
They are unwilling to offer explanations and examples and proof of their claims, believing everything they say is self-evident, but should anyone offer a dissenting opinion, they need to back up their claims, or they are simply wrong.
If you need examples, then you cannot see what technology can actually do. I have already explained this.
It's childish, really.
No. Dismissing something out of hand because you demand the work, research and thinking be done FOR you. That my friend is childish.
One simple question for you Adam; If you truly believe such a system is possible- why haven't you or your fellow "Zeitgeist Movement" people started setting up camp? I know of a group of Mennonites who, when fearing the draft during the first world war, fled to Mexico and, together, bought a huge tract of land, and lived as they saw fit.
Why don't you start, and prove us wrong? Why can you only offer ideas, but nothing tangible?
The same reason why any “commune” orientation that has provided well for its inhabitants while everyone else outside starves has failed. We’re not about making communes and pompously saving ourselves. If you’re onboard one of the very, very few liferafts (notice I didn’t say only liferaft) off a sinking ship where the passengers of that sinking ship FAR outnumber the capacity of those liferafts, then what does that spell? Chaos for the commune and inevitably failure. If you create a completely off-grid, self-sustaining and plentiful enclosed environment while everything goes to pot around you, where will the desperate and the hungry go? Directly to your commune. You won’t be staving anything off mate, coz just like a stronghold in the epicentre of a zombie apocalypse you, will, be, overrun.
That isn’t our goal, or wish. We hope to lift everyone up to help theselves as well as others around them. In order to achieve this, the mentality of people to impatiently shout at us "What have YOU done?" as though its all up to us is rather absurd. And to sit idly by while having the attitude of “Hey you! Fix it for me!” IS not gonna help anyone. In fact, that is one of the most disgusting values we have in our society. I call it the Reverse Caligula Syndrome. Masses of impatient, ignorant and hostile people indebting the solution of the world’s problems on a minority and complainig that it isn’t being done on time for their retirement. Kinda reminds me of a story I read as a kid called “The Little Red Hen”. But not only are the other animals unwilling to help, but they are acrimoniously critical. But ALL too happy to enjoy the fruits of the effort that they had no hand in.
Which one are you? A hen, or an apathetic, impatient and overly critical member of the herd? | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 7/24/2012 1:37:14 PM | >>>And right there you have your problem. Because of your impatience and ignorance you are giving up.
No, I'm dealing with a preacher, when I was told we would be discussing and exchanging ideas.
I offered you a link to a portion of my ideas, which explains it far better than I could, on the merits of a monetary system.
You told me that you didn't need to read it, because you already know what it contains- and that it is wrong.
Such a position is intensely rude when trying to exchange ideas. There is no point in discussing further with someone who is not interested in exchanging ideas. What I read from your response is "I am absolutely right, I have read everything that is to be read, and asking me to understand your position is a waste of my time"- and reading your other responses only re-enforces that.
>>>Well if that’s really the case, don’t bother anymre with this thread.
Don't tell me what to do. It is against the rules of these forums to issue ultimatums Such as those.
>>>when you can’t even be bothered to hear people out because they’re not IMMEDIATELY ringing your dnner bell.
Ironically, that is exacltly my criticism- that you won't hear people out, and are only interested in talking down to people who disagree with you, rather than exchanging ideas, as your initial post suggested.
>>>Examples are everywhere.
You misunderstand me.
I asked for examples. You told me to do my own research.
Other people made, to you, questionable claims- you demand others defend their beliefs against yours.
You are being a hypocrite- when you make claims, you don't have to back anything up- but when others make claims, they must back it up.
>>> We’re not about making communes and pompously saving ourselves. If you’re onboard one of the very, very few liferafts (notice I didn’t say only liferaft) off a sinking ship where the passengers of that sinking ship FAR outnumber the capacity of those liferafts, then what does that spell? Chaos for the commune and inevitably failure.
That makes your stance very clear- for your beliefs to work, or even be ATTEMPTED, the majority of the world must support you, if not everyone.
And what system could possibly fail under such a slanted standard? | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 7/25/2012 4:35:39 AM | No, I'm dealing with a preacher, when I was told we would be discussing and exchanging ideas.
Actually no. You misunderstand what a preacher actally does. A preacher forces information on you and expects you to believe every word. That's actually the opposite of what I'm doing. That's why preachers are also guilty of brainwashing people. They actually discourage the verification of their information coz ofbviosly people would end up questioning what is being "preached". The worst thing that anyone who is trying to brainwash you can do, is ask you to verify their information. And that is exactly what I do. In fact, I urge you to learn ore than me about TZM's proposals for YOURSELF. That isn't a model akin to preaching.
I offered you a link to a portion of my ideas, which explains it far better than I could, on the merits of a monetary system.
I've read TONS of monetary apologetics. Not one of them however can disprove the fact that money cannot provide for all humanity at a high standard of living where human beings are free to live their lies how they want to live them. Sure, money was brilliant at one point in time. But not anymore. Its outlived its function and is now pulling us down with it.
You told me that you didn't need to read it, because you already know what it contains- and that it is wrong.
Actally if you read back you'll see that I did read it. And don't value it as anything more persuasive than any of the other monetary doctrine that I've read. There is NOTHING that even Ayn Rand (who was a severely morally bankrupt woman to say the least) or Ludwig Von Mises can provide that can combat the beneficial innovations that we have created SINCE their doctrine was established.
That's why Ayn Rand, while brilliant in soe areas, FOR HER TIME, she is aoutdated in her doctrine. You see so much effort is put n my past monetary economists to defend the act of competition and money as "just a medium of exchange while completely overlooking the damage and depravity it does to those who aren't as despotic and cut-throat as the monetarily ambitious. Competition is actually a detriment to our society. And in fact, please consider the following suggestion as my rebuttal against this article. Ben McLeish's lecture called "The Innovation War". He actually made that lecture as a response to Rand's doctrine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gMi6zpKabE
Such a position is intensely rude when trying to exchange ideas. There is no point in discussing further with someone who is not interested in exchanging ideas.
Might I also ask are you a hypocrite? Have you read as much about TZM that I have about monetary economics?
What I read from your response is "I am absolutely right, I have read everything that is to be read, and asking me to understand your position is a waste of my time"- and reading your other responses only re-enforces that.
Can you please not try the fallacy of holding me accountable for the superficial assumptions you have created in your own head about me? I can understand that IS what you think of me, however that doesn't make me what you thin I am in reality. But like I have said, that is one of the things about your position which is flawed. You are trying to attack me, the messenger when your attempts to refute the message itself fails. That is otherwise known as ad hominem.
Don't tell me what to do. It is against the rules of these forums to issue ultimatums Such as those.
Oh wow. I'm just picturing you stomping your feet shouting "You're not the boss of me!" lol. Grow up. No-one is forcing you to stay. And if you are getting frustrated that your flawed arguments are not swaying logic then you really shouldn't waste your time. No-one's forcing you to do anything, so don't have a hissy fit. Ok?
Ironically, that is exacltly my criticism- that you won't hear people out, and are only interested in talking down to people who disagree with you, rather than exchanging ideas, as your initial post suggested.
I refer you to my discussions with anyone who actually presents a mature, logical argument and doesn't resort to logical fallacies. Also if you have viewed any of my aterials and discussions you will know that I give what I get. If you're mature and receptive then I take you seriously.He can actually discuss things and exchange information. What yourself, CressB and Paul K do is do EXACTLY what you are complaining about, that being the shouting down of other's contrary opinions and then you whinge when you're called out on that behaviour.
You misunderstand me.
I asked for examples. You told me to do my own research.
Well duhhhh, even if I provided you with links, you still gotta click on those links and verify THAT information. You can't expect people to spoonfeed you. I refuse to do that. Coz THAT would be preaching.
Other people made, to you, questionable claims- you demand others defend their beliefs against yours.
You are being a hypocrite- when you make claims, you don't have to back anything up- but when others make claims, they must back it up.
I have provided links to websites, credentialled experts and news aggrigate sites that display such proofs. Its not my problem that you cannot be bothered to look.
That makes your stance very clear- for your beliefs to work, or even be ATTEMPTED, the majority of the world must support you, if not everyone. And what system could possibly fail under such a slanted standard?
*facepalm* Does a single viral entity in and of itself need to invade every single cell in your body to kill you? No. Just enough to affect vital systems. And does the cancerous masses in the body of a cancer victim have to comprise the majority of their body's mass? No. Just enough to affect vital systems. You are obviously not familiar with any of our material because we wouldn't need everyone to agree, and living in an RBE isn't mandatory. Tell you what, here's a very short 2:38 video called "Population to Convince" By Doug Mallette (a former space shuttle programme engineer):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if-kvfB18Sw
You have framed this in a weird way as well. You call them "beliefs" but not even framed your terms and proven them. That's probably down to you not being familiar with the train of thought. | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 7/25/2012 1:49:20 PM | I was going to address your comments, but why bother? So i'll do you a favour and explain the forum rules to you....
>>>Oh wow. I'm just picturing you stomping your feet shouting "You're not the boss of me!" lol. Grow up.
Under "Polarization" in the rules, it states
"No Thread may exist designated exclusively for Response from a specific Gender, Ethnicity, Orientation, Religion, Public, etc. Such a Thread will be deleted. The entire Concept of a Forum is for anyone to post their Opinions and Thoughts, providing they are On-Topic, on any Threads he or she sees fit. ...More examples of no-no's....
"Free Enterprise. Gov't Shleps have no Business in here"....The Common Denominator is: "You are not Welcome", "Don't post here", "Get Out" ... ie. Exclusion."
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts141520.aspx
In short, telling ANYONE to leave a thread, or that they are not welcome, or that they should leave, or any form of exclusion is against the rules.
If you wish to keep continuing to post on this thread, I suggest you FOLLOW THE RULES. | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 7/25/2012 2:10:53 PM | I was going to address your comments, but why bother? So i'll do you a favour and explain the forum rules to you.... >>>Oh wow. I'm just picturing you stomping your feet shouting "You're not the boss of me!" lol. Grow up. Under "Polarization" in the rules, it states "No Thread may exist designated exclusively for Response from a specific Gender, Ethnicity, Orientation, Religion, Public, etc. Such a Thread will be deleted. The entire Concept of a Forum is for anyone to post their Opinions and Thoughts, providing they are On-Topic, on any Threads he or she sees fit. ...More examples of no-no's.... "Free Enterprise. Gov't Shleps have no Business in here"....The Common Denominator is: "You are not Welcome", "Don't post here", "Get Out" ... ie. Exclusion." http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts141520.aspxIn short, telling ANYONE to leave a thread, or that they are not welcome, or that they should leave, or any form of exclusion is against the rules. If you wish to keep continuing to post on this thread, I suggest you FOLLOW THE RULES.
Wow, in the absence of being able to address my points and thus stay ON TOPIC you try to imply I am breaking the forum rules. How mature of you. Tell you what, let's see if a mod will come along and reprimand me.
Not only are you overlooking the fact that this thread was not created for such purposes of agitation, but you are trying to hold me accountable for an assumption that it somehow was, when I ddn't even create the thread to begin with. You are clutching at straws and losing your integrity fast.
The quote you made of me is a call for you to man up and address the points at hand instead of attacking me personally to compensate for your inability to do the former.
You have desperately clung onto the ASSUMPTION that I am ordering you to leave. How presumptuous of you. Maybe it had escaped your perception since you are determined to find any chink in my armour and play on that to compensate for the lack of substance in your arguments, but I am saying that no-one is forcing you to stay, and if communicating on here is getting you hot under the collar, which it obviously is, I mean, even CressB had the maturity to step back and evaluate his arguments for a week or so, then your contributions on here are not gonna be helping anyone, they're gonna be emotionally charged and amounting to nothing moe than logical fallacies and equivocations. AS SUCH with that attitude, you would be wasting both yours and my time by trying to debate in such a manner. I have asked you time and time, and time again to verify this information so that you can interract on here in a mature, intelletual and knowledgable manner.
Such a stance is not a demand that you leave the thread and thus not a violation of the forum rules. Sorry.
Your biased paraphrasings of me belong only in your own perception and they cannot be used even in any disciplinary action. Any admin or mod can only take your paraphrasings as your own skewed opinion, not as evidence. If, you were an omnipotent diety however, your perception possibly could be used as evidence. lol
Howabout you address my points instead of making this appeal to incredulity fallacy? | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 7/25/2012 3:59:41 PM |
Tell you what, let's see if a mod will come along and reprimand me.
People can be reported to the mods | |
|
|
|
|
Page
7
of
11 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
|
|
Home
login 
