Zeitgeist - Moving Forward (now online)

[Dale]

i watched the trailer, it actually looks pretty good. I wasn't a fan of the first series of Zeitgeist movies at all, they were too patchworky and full of pieces of other people's films for me to enjoy. Looks like the new one is mostly original content and has a more coherent message

glad to hear my buddy Mike Ruppert in there too.

great, good to hear positive comments

There will be a lot of hype with this film. I believe Peter Joseph is aiming to get it to the mainstream as much as possible - this is his final film which requires a big push. This planet has become a mess, it's not a joke anymore. People need to get off their asses and be open to new solutions otherwise things will become worse.

[Dale]

What people forget is that this isn't just a film, it has a core concept behind it that is advocated by a very large, global, organised movement, divided into regional, local chapters internationally, which is only going to get bigger and bigger. We don't need to convince everyone - many people are unreachable when it comes to showing them new ideas. This goes for many on watmm but it's worth a try posting the trailer -- may have got a few people interested.

[eugene]

ok ok, we get it, i think i can be fairly objective when i say that watmm doesn't like this type of messianic style of delivery you're into, it's insulting a bit even.

[Guest Funktion]

"this is a monetary paradigm that will not let go until its killed the last human being"

 

oh god, i fucking lold so much

[Dale]

"this is a monetary paradigm that will not let go until its killed the last human being"

 

oh god, i fucking lold so much

well at least you watched it

thanks for the bump

[Guest Gbiscuit]

you're all better off watching they live.

[chenGOD]

The problem is that this resource-based economy is not a new idea, and that people are greedy, which means overuse of resources unless production is monitored. Who does the monitoring? And please, none of this "oh we have unlimited resources".

[GORDO]

I understand their arguments, you don't have to reinforce the points, once again you are merely repeating the same thing you read or heard instead of being critical yourself. no one can disagree that a system can generate viced behavior, it can generate virtuous behavior too. have you thought about the implications of this when changing the system?.

of course I am critical of any information I take in. When ever I am reading a book, I always consistently write notes after each chapter, and puruse further research independent of that book. If something does not reference well with what I have previously known to be true, I will always feel the urge to investigate further. I enjoy learning, and being critical and sparking discussions is something I always encourage. Please provide details of the virtuous behaviour the monetary system brings about? I am aware that money can be seen as an incentive, which can be a positive attribute, however the negatives far outweigh the positives. I find it difficult to think about good qualities of a monetary economic system due to it's built-in, inevitable flaws.

 

with your definition natural law, you can find ways to go around them, when people find ways around them they're seen badly (amoral). i don't thing society can be oriented but that's a matter of discussion. once again i understand the points, I don't need them to be repeated to me once again. do you understand the criticism? do you see the lack of seriousness in this "project" when the possible bad outcomes are just ignored?

It is good if we can come up with a technology to transcend natural laws that may limit progression - for example, mag-lev technology more-or-less defies gravity's force, and there are positives to such advancements like mag-lev etc frictionless travel, lower maintenance requirements possibly..

I am not saying that it is bad to transcend natural laws, it's just we need to understand what we are bound by on the planet, and attempt to realign ourselves.

You're not particularly giving me much to go by in your posts. I just hope you take onboard my answers as it seems many here at watmm contribute to the discussion but don't necessarily consider my responses in great detail. I have specifically answered your questions unless I've misinterpreted anything.

 

maybe i will go into more detail of my thoughts once the film is out, right now i don't feel like spending my energy on that. my critisism are the same i've said here multiple times so i can just sum it up as: the theory is not that well thought out.

[GORDO]

The problem is that this resource-based economy is not a new idea, and that people are greedy, which means overuse of resources unless production is monitored. Who does the monitoring? And please, none of this "oh we have unlimited resources".

 

it kinda makes me laugh that the name they use for their model implies that other economic systems are not resource based. it's also sortof contradictory that they throw the word economy in their name since by definition economy means the administration of scarcity. a model based on abundance wouldn't need to be 'economized'. but this is just semantics, not that it actually matters.

[Dale]

The problem is that this resource-based economy is not a new idea, and that people are greedy, which means overuse of resources unless production is monitored. Who does the monitoring? And please, none of this "oh we have unlimited resources".

It does not matter whether an idea is new or old - what matters is whether it is sustainable and supported scientifically. Resources can be monitored by computer technology and updated in real time - which can then display results on a global database for everyone to access and assess the rates of resource consumption of certain materials. It's all about managing resources intelligently. What we "want" is culturally defined -- but what we "need" has a pshycial referent. The planet is a closed system - we don't technically have unlimited resources, but we can create a near abundance using current technologies.

 

I think you know that greed is a conditioned value by the environment. There is no real benefit of being greedy in a social system that looks to transcend scarcity. Eliminating the monetary reward for being 'greed' = progression. People are corrupt to gain rewards.

[Dale]

The problem is that this resource-based economy is not a new idea, and that people are greedy, which means overuse of resources unless production is monitored. Who does the monitoring? And please, none of this "oh we have unlimited resources".

 

it kinda makes me laugh that the name they use for their model implies that other economic systems are not resource based. it's also sortof contradictory that they throw the word economy in their name since by definition economy means the administration of scarcity. a model based on abundance wouldn't need to be 'economized'. but this is just semantics, not that it actually matters.

I've not heard your definition of economy before.

Definitions of economy on the Web:

 

* the system of production and distribution and consumption

* the efficient use of resources; "economy of effort"

 

A monetary system is not based on the intelligent management of the Earth's resources. This means that resources are exchanged and divided through monetary means, which consists of nothing to do with fulfilling actual human needs of the poor, developing countries or sharing resources equally worldwide, because in order to consume, you need money. However, eliminating the monetary tag through abundant means = progression. The question should be "do we have enough resources"? and not "do we have enough money to build this, or eat that, or do this.."

 

I've heard these 'criticisms' countless times. I have provided specific posts to your concerns -- I hope you take onboard what I've typed here as it seems I keep repeating myself. It's very simple what we support as a movement. I am still confused to this day why so many people don't get the core concepts. Perhaps it's just down to conditioning, and the fact that people are just not used to such ideas.

[Guest Funktion]

but what if when youre trying to set the thing up, loads of stuff happens, and it gets worse?

[chenGOD]

LOL all economic systems are based around how to distribute scarce goods Bread.

 

re: new ideas - you said earlier in this thread that people are unreceptive to new ideas. I said this is not a new idea, you said it doesn't matter whether an idea is new or not. You are advocating a centrally planned economy, and we all know how those efforts have turned out in the past (hint: the Soviet Union was not an economically sustainable model).

 

In this resource based economy, where does individualism fall? I don't need a maserati spyder, but damn they sure look cool and I'd like one. I don't need a devilfish modded 303 but Aphex has one, so I want one too. In this utopian society, where everything we need is provided for, do we all get the same crap forced down our throats? Who decides what we need? I know I know, it's not a global elite, but a group of scientists. What if one of those scientists has a bias towards European peoples over Asian peoples?

What happens when someone who wants control over people (not resources or "wealth" - and yes, there are people like that out there) decides to hack the system to abuse the process?

 

Replacing money with resources is just semantics. If you don't have enough money, you don't buy something. If you don't have enough resources you don't get something. End result - same.

Now does that mean I don't support reform of trade agreements or the global economic system? Not at all, there are many issues which need to be dealt with. The idea that science is going to be some magic panacea is crazier than some of the trips I've had, and I've had some real fucked up times.

[Guest Funktion]

on the part of the venus project's website labelled 'what you can do' the first thing listed is

 

"Learn more about the direction of The Venus Project through our books and DVD's. If you can’t afford to purchase them, we provide many free in our Downloads section."

 

 

that made me lol aswell, FUCK MONEY, but please buy our instructional dvds. they need money to keep this going and presumably a fuckload more if theyre going to implement this, how deliciously ironic.

[Dale]

on the part of the venus project's website labelled 'what you can do' the first thing listed is

 

"Learn more about the direction of The Venus Project through our books and DVD's. If you can’t afford to purchase them, we provide many free in our Downloads section."

 

 

that made me lol aswell, FUCK MONEY, but please buy our instructional dvds. they need money to keep this going and presumably a fuckload more if theyre going to implement this, how deliciously ironic.

we still live in a system of money - this is the unfortunate reality and we have to still survive. The Venus Project is comprised of Jacque Fresco, who is 94, and his partner Roxanne Meadows who has to care for him full time. The DVDs they have for sale probably don't count for much of an income for them at all. A lot of the media which is linked to TVP can be found online for free. We don't necessarily need money right now - we actually need people's time and attention to understand and promote these ideas on a critical mass scale globally.

[Dale]

LOL all economic systems are based around how to distribute scarce goods Bread.

sure, we'll settle for that then.

 

re: new ideas - you said earlier in this thread that people are unreceptive to new ideas. I said this is not a new idea, you said it doesn't matter whether an idea is new or not. You are advocating a centrally planned economy, and we all know how those efforts have turned out in the past (hint: the Soviet Union was not an economically sustainable model).

Are you implying a centrally planned economy does not work and is inherently flawed? Can you identify the differences between a resource based economic structure and, say, the Soviet Union's economic model? Or are you saying they are the same thing? I understand why you feel the need to associate what you know as "history" to an idea that may be deemed similar (as you have nothing else to compare an RBE to) but there are key differences between an RBE and what the Russians implemented and I want to know whether you know what these differences are - or whether you feel there are even differences?

 

In this resource based economy, where does individualism fall? I don't need a maserati spyder, but damn they sure look cool and I'd like one. I don't need a devilfish modded 303 but Aphex has one, so I want one too. In this utopian society, where everything we need is provided for, do we all get the same crap forced down our throats? Who decides what we need? I know I know, it's not a global elite, but a group of scientists. What if one of those scientists has a bias towards European peoples over Asian peoples?

What happens when someone who wants control over people (not resources or "wealth" - and yes, there are people like that out there) decides to hack the system to abuse the process?

Individualism -- is this a sustainable frame of mind to adopt? Are your personal, consumerestic needs of "want" economically sustainable and important? Again, you clearly do not remember me stating that utopia implies perfection and an RBE is not perfect, but just a whole lot better and more efficient than today's social system - I've said this in many past threads but you still use this word and don't provide very much justification for using it.

You decide what you need, and look up the availability open to you using a worldwide central computer database updated in real time. However, people in an RBE will be educated differently to the ways we are today - in a sense that children would realise that adopting 'sustainable values' would be important if we want to take care of our environment, taking into account the negative consequences of needless, mindless consumption when making choices.

 

Replacing money with resources is just semantics. If you don't have enough money, you don't buy something. If you don't have enough resources you don't get something. End result - same.

Now does that mean I don't support reform of trade agreements or the global economic system? Not at all, there are many issues which need to be dealt with. The idea that science is going to be some magic panacea is crazier than some of the trips I've had, and I've had some real fucked up times.

No - money distorts the true value of things. Placing a price tag on an item is a limitation. Simple example - Your laptop has broken down, and you don't have enough money to replace a certain chip that needs to be fitted internally into the device. You've seen the chip in the shops, and there is a plentiful supply yet the monetary barrier stops you from taking it off the shelf > I ask you, where is the logic in this? Equating money with resources is completely illogical.

 

I also ask you what is the best tool we have today on this planet for optimising and improving our way of life = Technology and scientific processes. All we're doing as a movement is promoting this on a macro-scale, on a fundamental societal-level so everyone can benefit from the efficiency and accuracy of the scientific method. Think about what it has delivered for you -- from almost all technogies in your home, your medical treatment if you've ever been hospitalised, and generally making sense of the world around you in an objective view point.

[Guest Funktion]

on the part of the venus project's website labelled 'what you can do' the first thing listed is

 

"Learn more about the direction of The Venus Project through our books and DVD's. If you can’t afford to purchase them, we provide many free in our Downloads section."

 

 

that made me lol aswell, FUCK MONEY, but please buy our instructional dvds. they need money to keep this going and presumably a fuckload more if theyre going to implement this, how deliciously ironic.

we still live in a system of money - this is the unfortunate reality and we have to still survive. The Venus Project is comprised of Jacque Fresco, who is 94, and his partner Roxanne Meadows who has to care for him full time. The DVDs they have for sale probably don't count for much of an income for them at all. A lot of the media which is linked to TVP can be found online for free. We don't necessarily need money right now - we actually need people's time and attention to understand and promote these ideas on a critical mass scale globally.

 

 

that'd be ok if there actually were ideas. what there is, is vague demagoguery and promises of a world without crime or prisons or want or excess or hunger. there isn't any sort of comprehensive plan or study or even anything, it's all just stuff that looks kinda cool to try and get you on board with no substance, it totally reminds of scams like scientology, and that's not to say that i think fresco is swindling people, i think he's a real optimist, but its just... not even joseph stiglitz understands half the shit that goes on in the actual economy, it's fucking insanity for fresco to think that a "resource based economy" is anything other than a crazy utopian ideal that is and always will be completely unfeasible.

[chenGOD]

 

 

re: new ideas - you said earlier in this thread that people are unreceptive to new ideas. I said this is not a new idea, you said it doesn't matter whether an idea is new or not. You are advocating a centrally planned economy, and we all know how those efforts have turned out in the past (hint: the Soviet Union was not an economically sustainable model).

Are you implying a centrally planned economy does not work and is inherently flawed? Can you identify the differences between a resource based economic structure and, say, the Soviet Union's economic model? Or are you saying they are the same thing? I understand why you feel the need to associate what you know as "history" to an idea that may be deemed similar (as you have nothing else to compare an RBE to) but there are key differences between an RBE and what the Russians implemented and I want to know whether you know what these differences are - or whether you feel there are even differences?

 

In this resource based economy, where does individualism fall? I don't need a maserati spyder, but damn they sure look cool and I'd like one. I don't need a devilfish modded 303 but Aphex has one, so I want one too. In this utopian society, where everything we need is provided for, do we all get the same crap forced down our throats? Who decides what we need? I know I know, it's not a global elite, but a group of scientists. What if one of those scientists has a bias towards European peoples over Asian peoples?

What happens when someone who wants control over people (not resources or "wealth" - and yes, there are people like that out there) decides to hack the system to abuse the process?

Individualism -- is this a sustainable frame of mind to adopt? Are your personal, consumerestic needs of "want" economically sustainable and important? Again, you clearly do not remember me stating that utopia implies perfection and an RBE is not perfect, but just a whole lot better and more efficient than today's social system - I've said this in many past threads but you still use this word and don't provide very much justification for using it.

You decide what you need, and look up the availability open to you using a worldwide central computer database updated in real time. However, people in an RBE will be educated differently to the ways we are today - in a sense that children would realise that adopting 'sustainable values' would be important if we want to take care of our environment, taking into account the negative consequences of needless, mindless consumption when making choices.

 

Replacing money with resources is just semantics. If you don't have enough money, you don't buy something. If you don't have enough resources you don't get something. End result - same.

Now does that mean I don't support reform of trade agreements or the global economic system? Not at all, there are many issues which need to be dealt with. The idea that science is going to be some magic panacea is crazier than some of the trips I've had, and I've had some real fucked up times.

No - money distorts the true value of things. Placing a price tag on an item is a limitation. Simple example - Your laptop has broken down, and you don't have enough money to replace a certain chip that needs to be fitted internally into the device. You've seen the chip in the shops, and there is a plentiful supply yet the monetary barrier stops you from taking it off the shelf > I ask you, where is the logic in this? Equating money with resources is completely illogical.

 

I also ask you what is the best tool we have today on this planet for optimising and improving our way of life = Technology and scientific processes. All we're doing as a movement is promoting this on a macro-scale, on a fundamental societal-level so everyone can benefit from the efficiency and accuracy of the scientific method. Think about what it has delivered for you -- from almost all technogies in your home, your medical treatment if you've ever been hospitalised, and generally making sense of the world around you in an objective view point.

 

Centrally planned economy - doesn't work. Market is much more efficient. The central distribution method of the venus project is still a centrally planned economy. It's difficult to compare the venus project to Communism, because the Venus Project simply seems to say - there won't be money, police, government, leaders, just a big pile of resources that somehow magically get put together without harm to the environment.

 

Fresco's whole concept that we have enough resources overlooks the whole guns and butter problem or opportunity cost. His very example from the venusproject website shows this. To whit:

At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was no, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war.

There were enough resources to crank out the planes as a result of transforming civilian factories that were otherwise used for production of various civilian goods. Money certainly came into the equation, as the planes manufactured were sold or put on the Lend-Lease program which paid for much of the production (or in the case of the Lend-Lease act allowed the US access to other land to be able to exploit the resources there, which is barter, which you understand is what the economy is all about).

 

Individualism is a perfectly valid frame of mind to accept, indeed, I would argue one must espouse individualism for fear of stagnation. Individualism spurs innovation (the whole "movement" wouldn't have come about if not for Fresco's individualism) which can improve technology.

 

Let's say that 100 families need a certain amount of grain to feed themselves, but there is only enough to provide adequate nutritive value to 90 families. If those 90 families get any less, they will be too weak to participate in society. Who determines which 10 families get the shaft? Or let's say two mothers need medication for their infant, but there's only enough for one? "Oh yeah sure I'll just give up my baby for the greater good". Or to use your example: two people need a computer chip but there is only enough of a certain component to manufacture one. Rock, scissors, paper?

 

Technology and science can definitely improve life but only if applied properly. If Fresco is a sociologist, he should understand what Ulrich Beck is talking about in his "Risk Society". Think about how we got to where we are in the west in terms of our comparative advantage. We exploited scarce resources, then denied other nations access to our markets through mercantilist policies, followed by globalization (which sure improved things for industrialised nations) then after the wars a period of intense isolationism in the States. Now that we're finally trying to apply a new form of globalization, with some understanding from the past, you lot want to tear down all the progress and try something that has no real guiding principles, no real fundamental foundations, and a bunch of statements that sound great and full of love and hope but are pure idealist trollop.

[Guest Rambo]

that made me lol aswell, FUCK MONEY, but please buy our instructional dvds

 

woo, nothing gets past you lol

 

boy are their faces going to be red when this irony is pointed out

[Redruth]

it's the naughty ones that fuck it all up for the rest

[gaarg]

I've met Fresco and he's a decent guy. But even if he and Zeitgeist achieve a great thing on the world, people will come that don't give a fuck about moral and Zeitgeist, and only want power and material goods. The Venus project looks like a perfect project to make one god on earth. Sf all the way!

[Dale]

Centrally planned economy - doesn't work. Market is much more efficient. The central distribution method of the venus project is still a centrally planned economy. It's difficult to compare the venus project to Communism, because the Venus Project simply seems to say - there won't be money, police, government, leaders, just a big pile of resources that somehow magically get put together without harm to the environment.

Explain what you mean by "market"? Where the more money you have, the more access you have to goods and services.. Doesn't this accelerate inequality and differential advantage? Are you aware of the book written by Richard Wilkinson + Kate Pickett titled 'The Spirit Level: Why Equality Is Better For Everyone' http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resource/the-spirit-level

Also, download the following slides for review on the data they have collated on how our current 'market' economy correlates with social problems:

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/slides

Very interesting book. It's obvious our current market economy is flawed. Don't get me started on fractional reserve banking [which means the monetary system is mathematically flawed from the get-go]:

printing more money = devaluing the currency = gives rise to inflation = problems = leading to inherent boom/bust cycles ------ you don't seem to take this into account besides the blatent inequality that is perpetuated by the market ideology.

Please see my post at the end regarding specific processes within an RBE. There is simply too much to explain and I have little time right now. Hope the above helps.

 

Individualism is a perfectly valid frame of mind to accept, indeed, I would argue one must espouse individualism for fear of stagnation. Individualism spurs innovation (the whole "movement" wouldn't have come about if not for Fresco's individualism) which can improve technology.

Watch The Century of Self by Adam Curtis. In there he explains how detrimental individualism really is.

It encourages putting yourself before the rest of society and most of all, the planet. This is not a sustainable frame of reference because when making any kind of consumption decision, ultimately there are externalities built into that decision which must be considered, and the effects it will have on the environment. Fresco is obviously a "unique mind" in the sense that no one else has gone through the absolute exact experiences he has had in life -- just like you are "unique" and so am I because we are different minds with different experiences. But carrying on with this "individualism" to such an extent is not very healthy. The most important thing is bridging people together. If you want the world to unite, you need to identify our most basic commonalities -- we all require the same basic needs in order to survive, this is a brilliant "bridging the gap" thought process. Why do you want to separate people apart based on human emotions and selfish interests? You can achieve more by working together - more brains are better than one. An inflamed ego is not healthy.

 

 

Let's say that 100 families need a certain amount of grain to feed themselves, but there is only enough to provide adequate nutritive value to 90 families. If those 90 families get any less, they will be too weak to participate in society. Who determines which 10 families get the shaft? Or let's say two mothers need medication for their infant, but there's only enough for one? "Oh yeah sure I'll just give up my baby for the greater good". Or to use your example: two people need a computer chip but there is only enough of a certain component to manufacture one. Rock, scissors, paper?

Ok -- you commentate as though society as of today will just be dropped into an RBE without the relevant education equipped to operate in such a social system. At the moment, the point of the movement is to ultimately educate people about these possible solutions. An RBE won't come into fruition until many people (not all, but many) across the world adopt a different, sustainable value system. Shortages can be forecast and plans can be implemented to seek alternative medications, alternative grains in your example. We can work with trends. Before an RBE is implemented, we must do a global survey of how many resources we currently have. Such a global survey of all resources has never been done, but there's no limitation technologically to doing this.

 

Technology and science can definitely improve life but only if applied properly. If Fresco is a sociologist, he should understand what Ulrich Beck is talking about in his "Risk Society". Think about how we got to where we are in the west in terms of our comparative advantage. We exploited scarce resources, then denied other nations access to our markets through mercantilist policies, followed by globalization (which sure improved things for industrialised nations) then after the wars a period of intense isolationism in the States. Now that we're finally trying to apply a new form of globalization, with some understanding from the past, you lot want to tear down all the progress and try something that has no real guiding principles, no real fundamental foundations, and a bunch of statements that sound great and full of love and hope but are pure idealist trollop.

How much research have you done into an RBE?

I recommend, if you have the time, to listen to this radio broadcast, giving, in 1 hour, specific processes an RBE utilises. If you choose not to, you're wasting time and your statements will become irrelevant because I can give you material that shows foundational processes we agree with but you're not willing to put in the research, and carry on proclaiming "no real fundamental foundations":

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/peter-joseph/2010/10/06/10610--peter-joseph-8-lectures-2-a-resource-based-

Everything we discuss is backed by current technologies - we don't want to deny the West's progress at all, in fact, dismissing where we have got to now technologically speaking would be foolish. Tell me a direct quote, from the movement, which has said "we want to tear down all the progress". We want to update society -- in fact it would extend as far as updating the entire planet. We live in established societies, where change and improvements are limited and constrained to the monetary system. I'd prefer to live in an emergent society - one that is constantly updating itself in line with new, scientific discoveries for social concern.

[Dale]

I've met Fresco and he's a decent guy. But even if he and Zeitgeist achieve a great thing on the world, people will come that don't give a fuck about moral and Zeitgeist, and only want power and material goods. The Venus project looks like a perfect project to make one god on earth. Sf all the way!

You clearly have not read any of my posts. I have already mentioned that an RBE will not come into place until people have an awareness of sustainable values. It's not about "having morals" - they are subjective and culturally defined. Linking so-called "morals" in line with sustainability for life on the planet would be a more objective frame of reference to adopt. This should be really obvious to everyone - I still don't know why it isn't.

[eugene]

Let's say that 100 families need a certain amount of grain to feed themselves, but there is only enough to provide adequate nutritive value to 90 families. If those 90 families get any less, they will be too weak to participate in society. Who determines which 10 families get the shaft? Or let's say two mothers need medication for their infant, but there's only enough for one? "Oh yeah sure I'll just give up my baby for the greater good". Or to use your example: two people need a computer chip but there is only enough of a certain component to manufacture one. Rock, scissors, paper?

Ok -- you commentate as though society as of today will just be dropped into an RBE without the relevant education equipped to operate in such a social system. At the moment, the point of the movement is to ultimately educate people about these possible solutions. An RBE won't come into fruition until many people (not all, but many) across the world adopt a different, sustainable value system. Shortages can be forecast and plans can be implemented to seek alternative medications, alternative grains in your example. We can work with trends. Before an RBE is implemented, we must do a global survey of how many resources we currently have. Such a global survey of all resources has never been done, but there's no limitation technologically to doing this.

 

you're ignoring a very important question i think, i'm sure you don't believe that this future system will be faultless and that the bold part is completely implausible, so how is this determined ?

[Guest Space Coyote]

Thank you Bread for bringing this new Zeitgeist to my attention. About a year or so ago, a friend showed me one of the other Zeitgeist films that dealt with sustainability and I was surprised by how much sense it all seemed to make. I think you're addressing the questions and criticisms in this thread pretty damn well, both in terms of your commitment and your representing the ideas of the movement accurately and clearly. Let's hope the new movie goes viral as you say and surpasses the exposure of the previous ones