Fresco

[SR4]

I think you guys have a better grasp on this debate right now then I do...but I can't really agree with your points of "in a world without money there would be no misery or suffering". I don't really think that's ever possible, solely on the base of wanting power. Power over others, it doesn't even have to be monetary, but that system has the most power we have ever been witness too. Man's yearning for control over another will never cease. Ever.

[Guest Rambo]

I think you guys have a better grasp on this debate right now then I do...but I can't really agree with your points of "in a world without money there would be no misery or suffering". I don't really think that's ever possible, solely on the base of wanting power. Power over others, it doesn't even have to be monetary, but that system has the most power we have ever been witness too. Man's yearning for control over another will never cease. Ever.

 

I agree with that. There's always going to be misery and suffering. I just think we can do much better.

[SR4]

I think you guys have a better grasp on this debate right now then I do...but I can't really agree with your points of "in a world without money there would be no misery or suffering". I don't really think that's ever possible, solely on the base of wanting power. Power over others, it doesn't even have to be monetary, but that system has the most power we have ever been witness too. Man's yearning for control over another will never cease. Ever.

 

I agree with that. There's always going to be misery and suffering. I just think we can do much better.

 

 

We probably could, but keep in mind the monetary system has been enforced for so long you could argue it makes up the psyche of most people in the countries above the poverty line....and its the biggest, longest lasting power structure in human history(that aside from religion)

[Guest Rambo]

I think you guys have a better grasp on this debate right now then I do...but I can't really agree with your points of "in a world without money there would be no misery or suffering". I don't really think that's ever possible, solely on the base of wanting power. Power over others, it doesn't even have to be monetary, but that system has the most power we have ever been witness too. Man's yearning for control over another will never cease. Ever.

 

I agree with that. There's always going to be misery and suffering. I just think we can do much better.

 

 

We probably could, but keep in mind the monetary system has been enforced for so long you could argue it makes up the psyche of most people in the countries above the poverty line....and its the biggest, longest lasting power structure in human history(that aside from religion)

 

Agree, it's ingrained to the point were people can't even contemplate anything other that the system we have now. Everything shit that happens is filed simply under 'the way it is'. Homeless people living on the streets of the wealthiest countries on Earth - the way it is. Half the planet living in extreme poverty - the way it is.

 

I still take on board what you're saying about how you can't completely eradicate suffering, but the point still stands that we file unbelievable amounts crap under 'the way it is'

 

[Guest fiznuthian]

i always figured religion has atleast some part in it, in that a theme in many religions is that suffering and well-being go hand in hand. actually, to be honest i'm not sure if that's something taught in islam, or judaism, or etc..

 

but i used to ask that question to many baptists, methodists, pentecostals, or any other "christian" i could that lives around here. "why would god allow so much suffering in his world?" and that was almost always their answer: "you can't have good without evil, and you can't have happiness without suffering" or something along those lines. yeah, try telling that to your run-of-the-mill african while you chomp down mcdonalds every other day in between shopping sprees.

 

no wonder thewaythatitis is such a prevailant attitude.

[beneboi]

This seems like something that poor people would be attracted to.

[kaini]

wow, i'm playing through fallout 3 at the moment

they should have listened to this guy

[Dale]

I think you guys have a better grasp on this debate right now then I do...but I can't really agree with your points of "in a world without money there would be no misery or suffering". I don't really think that's ever possible, solely on the base of wanting power. Power over others, it doesn't even have to be monetary, but that system has the most power we have ever been witness too. Man's yearning for control over another will never cease. Ever.

I would just like to address the term human nature first of all.

From the time we are born, we are subjects of our conditioning depending on the environment we are born into. A value system can be defined as something that we inherit from an early age, depending on who is of influence and what people's behaviours are like around us when it comes to the very society that you are born into. Let's take a situation where for example, we happen to have an alien visitor whom we show around Earth (and can speak our language) - please bear with me on this.. Now, this alien being is of higher intelligence, and sees humans working in a call centre whilst being shown around Earth by a human host. The being frowns and is sort of confused because where it/he/she is from, they value life, to the extent where they have no money system which corrupts people to want power and property, they don't have a value system that promotes the mentality of materialism and "survival and struggle in life". So when this being who has visited Earth looks at humans working away in a call centre, it becomes really confused and asks questions to the human host showing this being around the office area.. the being sees this as a form of exploitation of the human brain. It questions why can't human brains be put forward to solving problems, perhaps they can be applied to the scientific method to better society? but no > it's a sorry state of affairs that we are enslaved by money on a daily basis worldwide just so we can survive, and people die from hunger and poverty from the fact that they have zero money to their name - which appears to be a very backwards way of living according the the expectations of that alien visitor.

 

This video clip from Zeitgeist Addendum expands upon my above explanation, I encourage everyone to watch this short 2 minute clip:

 

 

I don't know about anyone here, but I do not believe that my brain had some preconcieved notions of how life is lived on this planet. Our brain is not wired naturally to become all powerful and corrupt.. this is a total distortion of the very term "human nature" - the human nurture has adopted the need for power within a monetary system. Where would power exist in a resource based economy? The propensity for it would be completely obselete, on the basis that all technology does is create abundance so no one is taking advantage over one another as everyones needs are met with technological capabilites becoming ever-emergent.

[SR4]

i didn't say every brain, but there will always be at least one or a group of people in the world that wish to exert influence over others. it even goes beyond money, its one of the very principles of human existance. If humans didn't exert and crave power over one another, there would not have been a chieftain, there would not have been priests, etc

 

 

When you are a young child and someone has something that you have, odds are you will want to have more of it. Whether you train yourself to get out of that thought process is another matter.

 

I just find it completely unbelievable to think that man will collectively do away with exerting influence as a whole.

[GORDO]

From an evolutionary point of view it isn't difficult to accept that it is natural to try to do better off than the rest.

 

Also, property is a concept that was created before the idea of monetary system. I would also point out that the system we live in is what made it possible for a big number of people to live in abundance, nowadays the middle classes live as comfortable as the royal classes did in the middle ages.

 

Another criticism i would make to these idea of "resource based economy" is that it would be impossible to make every single soul in the planet to be in abundance, we're just too much. There will always be an issue of scarcity. The administration of scarcity is what we humans call economy. Resources on a finite planet are finite. So then you have a thing called trade, and money just so happens to be the thing that makes trade most efficient.

 

re: the way it is. Is not so much as we accept it that we have no choice, from a strategic point of view, than to play by the rules of 'the way it is'.

[Guest Rambo]

i didn't say every brain, but there will always be at least one or a group of people in the world that wish to exert influence over others. it even goes beyond money, its one of the very principles of human existance. If humans didn't exert and crave power over one another, there would not have been a chieftain, there would not have been priests, etc

 

 

When you are a young child and someone has something that you have, odds are you will want to have more of it. Whether you train yourself to get out of that thought process is another matter.

 

I just find it completely unbelievable to think that man will collectively do away with exerting influence as a whole.

 

i think tribes are kind of a good place to look if you want to see how much the environment influences the kinds of traits you're talking about.

 

The majority, if not all have chiefs but they do mostly just share out everything they have. No-one takes advantage their because everyone looks out for each other.

 

The example Bread is using about an ET coming and trying to understand how backward it is, kind of reminds me of this prog on the BBC last year some time, where a few members of this tribe from Papa New Guinea came and stayed with some guys in the UK and when they went out into town they were just unbelievably confused and sad the way we had these homeless people just on the streets, they literally couldn't get their heads around it.

 

I actually think it demonstrated the difference in culture pretty well. That situation would never arise in their culture. It's funny because they're basically using a resource based economy too.

 

I can't help but snicker at the mention of "the movement".

 

anyway all i said, as quoted above is that they're giving them bad rep. I never said they are all a bunch of conspiracy types, must i say, yet again, that i'm not in particular against the ideas they are putting forward?

 

even you yourself can't even begin to argue the finer points of the thing but instead repeat over and over again the catchy phrases they say, propaganda one might say.

 

wait a minute, what are you actually going on about? You've lost me...

 

*coughs*

 

[GORDO]

heh i just meant you to start discussing something instead of just defending "the movement".

[Guest Rambo]

lol you little liar. You were just talking crap!

[GORDO]

well it did get to you :P.

[GORDO]

i didn't say every brain, but there will always be at least one or a group of people in the world that wish to exert influence over others. it even goes beyond money, its one of the very principles of human existance. If humans didn't exert and crave power over one another, there would not have been a chieftain, there would not have been priests, etc

 

 

When you are a young child and someone has something that you have, odds are you will want to have more of it. Whether you train yourself to get out of that thought process is another matter.

 

I just find it completely unbelievable to think that man will collectively do away with exerting influence as a whole.

 

i think tribes are kind of a good place to look if you want to see how much the environment influences the kinds of traits you're talking about.

 

The majority, if not all have chiefs but they do mostly just share out everything they have. No-one takes advantage their because everyone looks out for each other.

 

The example Bread is using about an ET coming and trying to understand how backward it is, kind of reminds me of this prog on the BBC last year some time, where a few members of this tribe from Papa New Guinea came and stayed with some guys in the UK and when they went out into town they were just unbelievably confused and sad the way we had these homeless people just on the streets, they literally couldn't get their heads around it.

 

I actually think it demonstrated the difference in culture pretty well. That situation would never arise in their culture. It's funny because they're basically using a resource based economy too.

 

It is well known that primitive civilizations live this way. It even has a name: primitive communism.

 

This is the kind of thing i have in mind when I say that we should turn to smaller and smaller organization rather than on big centralized ones. when you live in a small town, even one where money exists people are more likely willing to help you out and share.

 

the enviroment vs. nature is an old debate and one that hasn't been settled. it is a mix of the two, there are more than enough exceptions and similarities in behavior in every and between these two.

[Dale]

well, I can agree with all he says about the current vices of current society, i can agree to an extend in the view that it is the current model of organization that creates many of them. I agree it's all fucked up, i agree that their idea of a possible future is nice and hell, i just don't see them making any plan for transition other than "lets tell people about it".

 

I think effective communication is one of the very first approaches to take - in terms of a grassroots global movement of people, such at TZM to address the symptoms of abhorrent behaviour and show people that in fact there is another way forward. TZM needs numbers, that's one of the very first things to be considered. Without the necessary numbers to influence peoples interests in this approach, the movement would inveitably dissolve with limited numbers. I myself can't imagine the numbers decreasing - as said before, I would not be surprised if TZM reaches 1 million by 2010, global lectures take place in many different areas of the world, huge conferences and so on.. Here in the UK, on Sky TV channel 200 (Edge Media TV network) - Zeitgeist + Zeitgeist Addendum have been repeated for weeks in the evenings, being broadcast to a UK audience. Things like finance/funds for certain projects can be considered at a stage where a mass of people support the ideas behind the VP. I know people don't like calling it a "movement", but what else is it?

 

I think many of the abhorrent behavior is part of human nature, even if concepts like property seem to be a human fabrication one could see how it is only natural. so then trade is natural and currency becomes a need. I just don't see how a "resource based economy" would eliminate this. There would still be need for labor no matter how advanced the technology, will the labor be remunerated? how? forced? by who? chosen at random?

 

As far as labour is concerned in a RBE - it would be minimised greatly. Think of all the financial jobs from selling insurance to brokers/bankers (wankers)/Retail occupations etc.. they would be rendered obselete and entirely irrelevant as there is no money to support these outdated establishments. So, the work humans do are aimed at the betterment of society. Wouldn't people look at studying science as an honour to help contribute to the well being of others? Education in a money system is a fraud, for you have to pay to learn when really all education should be free. The kind of work needed in a RBE would be on a scientific basis and I do not see a monetary incentive as something that would be required.. what do you need to buy or pay for if technology is creating abundance on mass? The sort of "work" people conduct would be enjoyed and embraced, not monotonous and repetitive work that makes people ignorant. People would have a lot more free time as well to spend time doing what they want to do whether it be spending time with their children/making music/painting/travelling/seeing friends.

 

This is what people work for now in this current system:

 

I also don't have a large scale solution, I don't think it is possible to implement one without the intervention of governments. I think maybe it will take a huge crisis to teach humanity the lesson.

 

I hope it does not take a huge crisis.

 

What i can say and propose is that everyone on the individual level who is aware of the issues, that cares, and has the resources to do it could and should act on the individual level should act accordingly, and prepare for the future. for instance if i had the money I would try to be as selfsuficient as possible. Maybe even conditions on the planet will FORCE people to do it. this last is most likely.

 

Exactly - I agree on the self sufficiency comment you added. Imagine if enough people had solar panels and their own means of renewable energy sources so that they come off the energy grid and really mess up the energy suppliers financially.

 

basically the solution would be to get everyone in the same state of mind, and I don't see that happening, ever.

 

I would not hold onto your word "ever".. do you think Martin Luther King Jnr felt this way when trying to create social change? History has shown it can happen, so I would not rule this out. Sure racism still exists, but all colours get treated the same by law generally speaking in more economically developed countries. It will take a long time, but if the first RBE city is established, people wouild see it from an outsiders point of view and become intrigued.

 

But I would like for the world to turn to renewable energy, to be organized on smaller scales instead of on being centralized on big overpopulated cities. That way getting a job would be less of a necessity, because on smaller scales it's easier, I think, that the people around you would be willing to help you get by. But basically all you can do is set an example of how it can be done without depending on the system.

 

At the moment, I am contacting news and media publications, activist parties such as Greenpeace, people in my locality who share similar interests in the field of scientific and social concern. TZM has teams set up, a communications team/administrative team/technology team/creative team to get some organising going. I'm reviewing my life to an extent where I'm going back to education to learn and educate myself in a useful field of science.

[Guest Rambo]

From an evolutionary point of view it isn't difficult to accept that it is natural to try to do better off than the rest.

 

Also, property is a concept that was created before the idea of monetary system. I would also point out that the system we live in is what made it possible for a big number of people to live in abundance, nowadays the middle classes live as comfortable as the royal classes did in the middle ages.

 

Another criticism i would make to these idea of "resource based economy" is that it would be impossible to make every single soul in the planet to be in abundance, we're just too much. There will always be an issue of scarcity. The administration of scarcity is what we humans call economy. Resources on a finite planet are finite. So then you have a thing called trade, and money just so happens to be the thing that makes trade most efficient.

 

re: the way it is. Is not so much as we accept it that we have no choice, from a strategic point of view, than to play by the rules of 'the way it is'.

 

putting aside the argument on whether we can ever eliminate scarcity (i think we can btw). The need for property (with or without the existence of a monetary system being in place) comes directly as a result of scarcity. I have no need go collecting air, for example, because it's amazingly abundant. I definitely would though if it was scarce.

 

If i invite you round to my house and you're in the habit of helping yourself to water whenever you need a drink, because that's how we roll in this muthafuckin joint... then it's perfectly fine while water is abundant . I will pay no interest in how much you take. If it becomes scarce on the other hand, that's my motherfucking water.

 

So basically, i don't think the need for property (maybe with the exception of the odd sentimental possession) is a fundamental thing. It's just a psychological reaction to whether there's a perceived need for it. If the surface of the Earth was carpeted with diamond rings (made by a sky wizard) - so literally trillions of Diamond rings on the planet - no-one would run home with pockets full and put them in a locked cupboard. You'd just pick one up off the floor and put one on whenever you felt like it. Then throw it back on the floor when you were bored with it.

[GORDO]

good point

[Dale]

It is well known that primitive civilizations live this way. It even has a name: primitive communism.

 

This is the kind of thing i have in mind when I say that we should turn to smaller and smaller organization rather than on big centralized ones. when you live in a small town, even one where money exists people are more likely willing to help you out and share.

 

the enviroment vs. nature is an old debate and one that hasn't been settled. it is a mix of the two, there are more than enough exceptions and similarities in behavior in every and between these two.

 

Will it not have to be everyone across the world working together in unison to get something like a RBE implemented? We shouldn't have to retreat to smaller localised communities as they would isolate people from sharing new technologies, and you'd invevitably corrupt the small groups of communities by creating an "us against them" mentality going.. sort of like how patriotism is seen today and the fact that we have boarders around countries which is pretty backwards as well. I was born on this planet so surely the planet belongs to everyone and you should be permitted to travel anywhere you like? "Sorry son", money stops you from doing this on so many levels. I think collectively, we can agree that the money system can be criticised negatively for hours and hours upon end. It's just a terrible way of living.

[Dale]

This is great:

 

Why don't we have this? > Energy suppliers profit from scarce fossil fuels, so we have the necessary technology to have free abundant energy for all however money creates a backwards notion, almost like a barrier to this sort of technology.

[kaini]

*opens bar with holes in the wall and lots of aeolian harps*

 

mmmm autechrey

[SR4]

\

i didn't say every brain, but there will always be at least one or a group of people in the world that wish to exert influence over others. it even goes beyond money, its one of the very principles of human existance. If humans didn't exert and crave power over one another, there would not have been a chieftain, there would not have been priests, etc

 

 

When you are a young child and someone has something that you have, odds are you will want to have more of it. Whether you train yourself to get out of that thought process is another matter.

 

I just find it completely unbelievable to think that man will collectively do away with exerting influence as a whole.

 

i think tribes are kind of a good place to look if you want to see how much the environment influences the kinds of traits you're talking about.

 

The majority, if not all have chiefs but they do mostly just share out everything they have. No-one takes advantage their because everyone looks out for each other.

 

The example Bread is using about an ET coming and trying to understand how backward it is, kind of reminds me of this prog on the BBC last year some time, where a few members of this tribe from Papa New Guinea came and stayed with some guys in the UK and when they went out into town they were just unbelievably confused and sad the way we had these homeless people just on the streets, they literally couldn't get their heads around it.

 

I actually think it demonstrated the difference in culture pretty well. That situation would never arise in their culture. It's funny because they're basically using a resource based economy too.

 

 

Keep in mind this is usually because the tribes are busy declaring war on each other if their trade or territory was disrupted.

 

Even if I was to concede the point that we could grow these children into not wanting to exert influence over each other, how do you suppose the ideal dies out? The people in seats of power will not give up power because they inherently crave it, otherwise they would not be in that position....why do you expect them to give up their reins? Even if we had an abundance of all things, surely they would not be apt to comply with acknowledging the fact, or even telling their subjects that they no longer have to answer to superiors?

 

the above paragraph and sentence preceding it are my response. i suck at quotes.

[SR4]

From an evolutionary point of view it isn't difficult to accept that it is natural to try to do better off than the rest.

 

Also, property is a concept that was created before the idea of monetary system. I would also point out that the system we live in is what made it possible for a big number of people to live in abundance, nowadays the middle classes live as comfortable as the royal classes did in the middle ages.

 

Another criticism i would make to these idea of "resource based economy" is that it would be impossible to make every single soul in the planet to be in abundance, we're just too much. There will always be an issue of scarcity. The administration of scarcity is what we humans call economy. Resources on a finite planet are finite. So then you have a thing called trade, and money just so happens to be the thing that makes trade most efficient.

 

re: the way it is. Is not so much as we accept it that we have no choice, from a strategic point of view, than to play by the rules of 'the way it is'.

 

putting aside the argument on whether we can ever eliminate scarcity (i think we can btw). The need for property (with or without the existence of a monetary system being in place) comes directly as a result of scarcity. I have no need go collecting air, for example, because it's amazingly abundant. I definitely would though if it was scarce.

 

If i invite you round to my house and you're in the habit of helping yourself to water whenever you need a drink, because that's how we roll in this muthafuckin joint... then it's perfectly fine while water is abundant . I will pay no interest in how much you take. If it becomes scarce on the other hand, that's my motherfucking water.

 

So basically, i don't think the need for property (maybe with the exception of the odd sentimental possession) is a fundamental thing. It's just a psychological reaction to whether there's a perceived need for it. If the surface of the Earth was carpeted with diamond rings (made by a sky wizard) - so literally trillions of Diamond rings on the planet - no-one would run home with pockets full and put them in a locked cupboard. You'd just pick one up off the floor and put one on whenever you felt like it. Then throw it back on the floor when you were bored with it.

 

 

also, i have to disagree with this analogy based upon the hypotheticals of all of it.

 

the reason you don't horde air is because you never had to in past human existance. You needed food, shelter, hunting materials, etc etc which, although abundant, were hard to come by due to trekking long distances, rivers, oceans etc. Now that we have the technology to harvest all of those things without leaving the state/country, its very hard for humanity as a whole to reject what their idea of survival and civilization was built upon.

 

in addition now that im thinking about it, you would almost have to completely redefine what civilization means, because civilization was created out of the necessity of survival from micro all the way to macro stages.

[Guest Rambo]

i don't understand what you're getting at to be honest. You don't horde air because you don't need to, as there's so much of it. When you say "the reason you don't horde air is because you never had to in past human existance"

 

I've just given you the reason why.

 

Actually i just don't see how what i've said can be disputed, it's pretty obvious stuff.

[SR4]

i don't understand what you're getting at to be honest. You don't horde air because you don't need to, as there's so much of it. When you say "the reason you don't horde air is because you never had to in past human existance"

 

I've just given you the reason why.

 

Actually i just don't see how what i've said can be disputed, it's pretty obvious stuff.

 

 

im explaining as to why we horded as a being in the first place, hence power and control mechanisms, and why this fruit loop idea will never work. basically humans are too smart. we have the capacity to change our ways for a universal better but the lust for control and dominance will never go away....and hording, which led to communes, tribes, etc etc is one of the root causes for the shit mess we are in.

 

I like these ideas you all propose, dont get me wrong, but they are completely impossible at the current point in time and most likely for many many generations to come. You don't change thousands of years of civilization with one movie and some wishful thinking.