Z-Day 2010 - "Be the change we want to see in the world

Post Reply New Topic

I was just throwing out examples, and I mostly meant the more extreme forms of those ideologies.

You don't realise that I HAVE been presenting very consise, and very understandable explanations to this direction. The problem does not lie in my explanations, but in 2 things.

1. The fact that this information is very foreign to the train of thought utilised by society, and in fact shows what society is sheided from i.e. technological unemployment, cyclical consumption, fiscal manipulation, modern money mechanics).

2. The fact that you do not wish to believe that these ideas have validity. You have already chosen what you will about them, and the only thing you will not attack, accept, attempt to pick apart, disrepute or argue against, are other negative opinions that do not hold sufficient knowledge about this direction.

You only listen to something that is either negative or critical to these ideas. That is all that satisfies you. I have got my facts right about The Venus Project. That is why I can explain it well. The only reason why it doesn't penetrate your skull is because you don't WANT to consider it. Therefore you are expecting me to do the impossible. Which I refuse to do because if someone REALLY isn't gonna get it, and furthermolre you persist to project your own opinions upon somethin g you refuse to consider. It is not my job to convince you of anything. That is why I suggest to you to take a look for yourself. You may think that I am getting exasperated by now. But I'm not. The exchanges here are developing my skills in being able to better present these ideas to even the most obtuse of people. I am always looking for people who will at least put up a little resistance, coz there is no reward in the act of presenting information to someone and they just blindly say ""yea, you're right". There's no fun in that. Having someone who is a little obtuse or at least being a little obtuse provides ample pressure to refine and develop my presentation in a way that will become the optimum method for expressing the tenets and explanations for this direction. And you are good testing grounds so to speak. I don't say anything like "this reminds me of" or "this sounds like"

If this perspective is about matters of intersubjectivity, then how come you are so biased that you revel in your selective opinions? How come I can explain till my fingers are worn to the bone wittling down my explanations and dumbing them down further, and further, and further, and still you refuse to consider it? It is because you have already made up your mind about it. That is why you don't "see content in it".

And besides, I thought you walked away from this issue. Why the change of heart?

@Adam-Anti-Um: Actually, Awesomelyglorious is an anarchist himself. He has reviewed the Venus project thoroughly, and rejected it on his evaluations. I myself was once a conspiracy theorist and supporter of the Venus project. After discussing it with him in a cordial manner, I became aware of its negative aspects. Just because Jacque Fresco had an amazing idea doesn't mean he's infallible.

The Venus project is something not at all foreign to him. He's probably been aware of it before either of us saw Zeitgeist.

In other words, the only reason someone would ever disagree with you is because they just aren't smart enough to realize how amazingly brilliant you are.

No, the problem actually does lie in your explanations. I am quite able to study and understand ideas with which I disagree. You just haven't presented anything of meaningful content.

Nope. Wrong. You have part of it, however you don't understand it all. That is what has lead you to assumptions to make up for what you don't understand of it. For example your assumption that this system advocates anarchy. That and you assume it proposes a radical and forceful abolision of the existing structures.



Wrong again. The Zeitgeist Movement or The Venus Project are not anti religion. Truths and origins of religion are discussed, but that does not mean to say it is anti-religious. That is an agressive standpoint and the movement is not about agression. We at the Zeitgeist Movement acknowledge the fact that if you demonise or outlaw something, or simply make it socially abhorant, it will simply go underground. That is the point. We do not propose to discard of religion, we in fact allow people the freedom to practise their chosen faith, because if you make it wrong to practise it, then it will just go underground. Look what happens with crimes and other socially incompatible practises that are shunned out of acceptance. Like for example, Piracy. A man selling Pirate films is no longer gonna openly sell his stock coz there is too much of a risk. So it goes underground. The same applies to any religion that is abhorated.



Wrong again. First of all, let's take a look at your opening phrasing "I compare it to"? Does that sound like the words someone would use when describing something they completely understand? Or would that be the choice of words of someone who doesn't understand something, and wishes to compensate for that lack of understanding by making an analogy? This proves you do not understand the proposals you are criticising.

Let's also look a your "reminding" of plato's "ideal state". I really doubt you understand these proposals. Taking into consideration that plato could not see past the idea of human beings in positions of power and authority, that is one MAJOR thing that the Venus Project is not.

Plato envisioned people in power, the Venus Project doesn't.
Plato envisioned a utopia, the Venus Project knows there is no such thing.

I really don't see how you with your supposed understanding of the Venus Project could have been reminded of this UNLESS you actually don't and somehow assume that the Venus Project is a utopian society.



It seems to me that you acknowledge the fact that those who have demonstrated progressive thought, the knee-jerk reaction for those not familiar with it is ridicule. Does it seem that history is repeating itself here? One of the main tenets of The Zeitgeist Movement is the emergent nature of the universe. That everything is changing, from nature, to human thoughts and understandings. Nothing is static. There are no final frontiers.



I would agree with you here. However for some reason some cannot be bothered to even do that.

Last edited by Adam-Anti-Um on 11 Feb 2010, 12:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You misunderstand. I am nothing special. The only reason you are disagreeing with this idea is because you do not fully understand it.



Well the fact that you have regarded my ideas as "BS" and called my ideas communist shows you are not reading my posts properly. Once you do, you might see where I'm coming from. Or maybe you haven't seen anything of content because you do not wish to see anything of content.


The roles of people in a monetary system are basically broken into three distinctions:
The employee, the employer and the consumer.
The employee performs tasks for the employer in exchange for a wage or a monetary payment, while the employer sells a good or service to the consumer for a profit; another classification of monetary payment.
In turn, both the employer and the employee function as consumers, for the monetary payments they obtain are used to purchase goods and services relevant to their survival. This act of purchasing goods and services is what allows the entire system to perpetuate; thus allowing for the employer and the employee to make money and thus continue consuming. In other words, there is the requirement of perpetual or cyclical consumption that keeps the entire economy going. If consumption was ever to stop, the whole system would collapse. This produces two severe consequences for society:
1. Nothing physically produced can ever maintain a lifespan longer than what can be endured in order to maintain the needed 'cyclical consumption'. In other words, everything must break down in a respective amount of time in order to continue the financial circulation needed to power the economy. This characteristic could be defined as 'planned obsolescence'. Planned obsolescence is essentially the deliberate withholding of efficiency so the product in question breaks down respectively fast. This happens both intentionally with manufacturers timing their products for breakdown, often as soon as the warranty runs out and indirectly; where profit-based shortcuts taken in production, usually in the form of cheap materials and poor design translates into an inferior product immediately - with the failure of the product simply a matter of time.
The second consequence is that new products and services must be constantly introduced regardless of functional utility, generating endless waste.
The result of these two issues are nothing but unacceptable, for not only are resources being neglectfully used in products that are designed not to last, wasting human energy and materials, the amount of frivilous waste and pollution that results is staggering. In other words, waste is a deliberate byproduct of industry's need to keep 'cyclical consumption' going. The obsolete or expired product is trashed, offed into landfills, polluting the environment, while the constant multiplicity accelerates this pollution.
To express this from a different angle, imagine the ramifications of production methods that strategically maximize the efficiency and sustainability of every product, using the best known materials and techniques available at the time. Imagine products so well designed that they didn't need maintenence for say, 100 years. Imagine a house that was built from fireproof materials, where all appliances, electrical operations, plumbing and alike, were made from the most impermeable, highest integrity resources available on Earth.
In such a saner world, where we actually created things to last, minimizing pollution and waste, a monetary system would be impossible. For cyclical consumption would slow tremendously, forever weakening so called "economic growth".

Like I have stated MANY times in my posts, that is if you could possibly consider this without bias and with an open mind, is a resource-based economy as envisioned by The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project.


Of course there will always be debilitating limitations in our current system. I thought that was self evident. And yes, TO YOU, my proposals sound communist, because people in our society has been brought up to associate anything which rejects the profit system to communist ideas. To most people in our society, ANYTHING that proposes such a thing MUST be communist by definition. What I propose is not communist by any stretch of the imagination and you would see that if you look at the information without the sub-conscious tendency to label foreign ideas as such.
As for the fact that resources are finite, of course they are. That is why resource management is central to a resource based economy. When you sustain a cut or injury, your nervous system does not hold a vote or a debate as to how to heal the wound. The reaction is immediate and optimal. We as human beings hold the functioning of the human body in such reverence however we never think to structure our social and economic systems by the same principles.
You seem to be saying that you can tell exactly what limitations can affect ANY economic system. Well the fact that you do not understand my proposals and furthermore have rejected them shows you refuse to accept the possibility that humans can ever be free.


Not entirely. Say you were not a member of this forum and you wished to own a computer in order to participate whenever you wished to, night or day. You would require the purchasing power to acquire a computer and further purchasing power to be able to hold down a broadband deal. Not a question of resources. A question of purchasing power.
Say you wished to take a holiday. You would require the purchasing power to afford said holiday. Not a question of resources. A question of purchasing power.
Say you wished to purchase a DVD for a film that you know you would enjoy, for which a pirated option would not facilitate, for example, gag reels, outtakes, director's commentary, etc., you would require the purchasing power in order to purchase said DVD. Not a question of resources. A question of purchasing power.
I could go on all night giving you HUNDREDS of examples.


You have contradicted yourself here. For acknowledging the fact that while what we know is fossil fuels today, we will eventually be forced to utilise renewable energy sources such as solar/wind/tidal/wave/geo-thermal.
So the question really is WHY aren't we ALREADY utilising these CLEAN, RENEWABLE forms of generating energy today? The answer, is PROFIT. It is much more profitable to plunder the earth's already severly depleated fossil fuels and create cataclismic waste and pollution than to invest in the cleaner renewable energy sources we have already developed.
Have you seen the film "Chain Reaction"? Have you read Ben Elton's book "Gridlock"? In those stories the fact that when a clean renewable and much more efficient form of energy generation is developed and proposed for mass applications, the creators are hunted down and killed because their creations threaten the very fabric of the economy. Its like building a world on having to pay for every step you take as you walk everywhere, then all of a sudden someone develops a fast, efficient transportation system that negates the very need to pay for it.
My point is, you uphold the oil industry's use of oil and natural gas, but simaltaneously recognise that we will HAVE TO move in a much more efficient direction once the last drum of oil is burned. And taking into consideration that scarcity makes things more valuable, how much do you reakon that last barrel of oil will cost in a world where the establishment and the oil industry refuse to convert to clean energy?


I have been. Like I said before your mind has already closed to the idea. Let me be completely honest here. It is not my job, business or right to convince you of anything. I am here, presenting ideas to you in the hope that you would view them without prejudice. You say that I have to do all the work for you, but I am not a dictator, so I refuse to do this for you. Dictators are the ones that beat you into a corner in submission and leave you nowhere else to turn so you see their logic by force. The psychological term for this is "Submission to the point of compliance". That may be what you are used to, since you expect ideas that are this foreign to you being rammed down your throat, then all of a sudden I come along with my proposals that you can either take or leave, and you don't know what to make of them. They don't fit what you have been prepared for. So simply because they contradict the essense of what you know, you throw out your already equipped attacks and labels. eg. Communism, BS, insane, well they are your societies beligerent weapons against foreign ideas so you would be better acquainted with them.
I am more than happy to explain this direction to you. I am more than happy to elaborate on it since you have shown sustained interest, even if it is to attempt to reveal it as fraudulent. However I am not here to dictate to you. I am here merely as another human being who has a different way of looking at things. You can either look objectively and see the logic and humanity in my proposals, or you can argue against them. That is your right. However, your refusal to understand these ideas negates any chances of you having any grounds in saying they are "wrong". One of the principles The Zeitgeist Movement is built upon is the principle that the only reason you cannot truly love something, is because you don't know enough about it.

Your assumption that this is a fringe ideology cannot be helped, since you are not familiar with this direction. However this does not justify the labelling. Once you take a look at these ideas without prejudice, you will see them as the humane and productive directions that they are. It is not a case of me doing it for you. Because who am I to tell you who you are and what you should believe? It is not exhaustive. That assumption is based upon the laziness that is associated with considering anything outside of your frame of reference. Just like with many people I converse with on a day to day basis, people cannot be bothered to THINK. We were given our brains for a reason. And I'll tell you one thing for free: It was NOT to figure out ways to kill each other.

I seriously doubt this guy undersands it since it took me days to explain to him that it is not a technocratic ideal and that it is not communist, there were so many things he assumed about it. He probably still does. If you don't believe me, then refer to the venus project thread and see the sheer confusion as I walk him through it all step by step and at no point had he EVER claimed to know what the venus project was about. I know outsider arguments when I hear them.

Because I am apparently blind. I know a few of your responses, they haven't been sufficient to argue your points.


I think this point is kind of doubtful. Why? Because Orwell's counter-statement was about how centralizing money supply actually promoted stability, which means that he understands cycles but also understands them as existing before central banking, with the latter being the real concern.


Regardless of what my wishes are, these ideas don't have much validity. Even if I had made up my mind, I can make up my mind in a different direction.


Umm.... I doubt it. I think that most rational arguments are things I can at least accept. I mean, look, there are a few things that I don't see the point in, such as the labor theory of value(WHY WON'T IT DIE!!) but I think a lot of things are things I can rationally consider.

"This reminds me of", is a valid concern.


Everyone is biased and revels in their selective opinions. You don't think everyone else here basically thinks that you are just being vague and then using that to revel in your selective opinions?


Eh, seeing Orwell making the same mistake I made caused me to want to stick a toe back in. I am leaving.(which to you, Orwell, and to anyone else, should be a good sign of the utility of further arguing)

I never said you were blind. Figuratively or otherwise. I think you are attempting to put words in my mouth. I think you are unmovable in your opinions, which by the way I have not tried to change. Like I said before. You are too useful as you are.



The implication of the term "stabiliser" seems to have gone ignored. And the fact that THE GREAT DEPRESSION and the RECESSIONS have occured AFTER the establishment of the federal reserve bank. Stabiliser? I don't think so.



How can you say "regardless of what my wishes were" when the issue is you seeing or not seeing validity? You seem to imply that a man born blind can be convinced what a tree is like. This of course is not a simily for you, but an analogy. My point is that similar to the blind man, your mind cannot accept these ideas because to you they have no validity. That does not mean the ideas have no validity FULL STOP. Think about it.



You behaviour has proved your inability to accept anything I have stated in any of my posts. This shows an unmovable mentality. Which is fine for you, however when you challenge me to prove to you something you won't accept in the first place, then you see the fact that your time has been wasted and not mine. You have been great practise for conveying my ideas.



How so?




Oh I know everyone here thinks I am being vague. It is a defense mechanism for when you are refusing someone else's point of view and you wish to project the blame onto them and give them the impression that the reason they haven't succeeded in changing anyone's mind is that they have "been too vague". This doesn't work with me, coz I know what I have been saying. And I haven't been out to change anyone's mind.



Fair enough. Fairwell buddy. Until next time. Thanks for being there to bounce ideas off of.

Ok? Trying to explain and clarify an idea and give it's strengths is partially an exercise in the more analytical aspects of persuasion and an important part of a forum.

I said "blind" not as a way to put words in your mouth, but rather because it seems the implication of your statement.


Recessions happened before the federal reserve bank though, so that isn't a great argument from what I see. The Great Depression is also a time when the federal reserve bank has been highly criticized throughout economic studies. The action taken by the reserve was one that contracted monetary policy and thus created a deflationary spiral.


Umm.... pretty easily. The claim is that whatever explanation you are positing does not seem to explain all of the variation. I don't think that your notion of a blind-man really explains things much at all. You are putting forward something like "blindmen around an elephant", yes? The issue is that, despite the importance of perspective in theoretical debates, it is significantly less than most other areas of life, and thus is rarely a good place to start.


Really? I would think it would show something poor about your posts. After all, if we simplify the matter, there are two sources of variation: me and you. I think that I have been reasonably rational in the past, even if I am stubborn, at least I can evaluate things intelligently. This means that you seem to be the more problematic variable, especially since others have criticized you.


Most things are similar to something. Similar in some structure. Similar in some philosophical foundation. Similar in something else. Sometimes this is a false positive, and sometimes it is a real positive that the thinker is having difficulty putting their finger on. Because of that, it is often beneficial and/or necessary to clarify similarities and differences so that way it is known it can be known that the fallibility of the past project won't impact the future one. That the similarities were not the flaws, but rather the flaws are all related to aspects where the matter is different.


Umm.... I don't think it is a defense mechanism. If you were less vague, they'd be criticizing specific proposals and proposed systems, like they do with most other ideas.

He just loves to argue and criticise. ^^;

Ahhh, so you're not refuting my doubts? He just loves t argue and criticise, Well thats a cop out iof ever I read one. Ok. However it doesn't support your previous claim that he understood anything about The Venus Project.

Explain? You didn't explain so much assert "It's not like ANYTHING ELSE!", which is a claim that really explains nothing.

You also didn't walk me through anything step-by-step. At all. In fact, you didn't really even present the idea that you were talking about. This is not even something that is only MY complaint, Orwell also said something similar to me.

As it stands though, comparing the Venus Project to technocracy seems like a very favorable interpretation, as from what is suggested, the Venus project is essentially just a less realistic version of the technocratic project, with perhaps some additional ideological baggage.

I thought you were leaving. Oh well, here goes.

Which is why I like to explan things. However I know you cannot be persuaded coz you probably still think it is a communist technocracy.



Did you notice that I said "figuratively or otherwise"? There seems to be a great deal of people not reading my posts properly, saying I'm crazy, saying I'm insane, regarding my views as BS, disregard what I am saying and gravely misunderstanding my points. And THEN you say I'm being vague!! ! Coincidence?



Of course they happened before the federal reserve. You misunderstand me yet again. My point i8s that the MYTH that was perpetuated was that the fed would be a STABILIZER and then a few decades later we saw THE GREAT DEPRESSION. I wouldn't call a country with a 3rd of the population unemployed a STABLE economic condition.



So you're splitting hairs on my analogies now? Well I do apologise that I didn't pose an analogy that you would have put, but that is where we differ.



You? Reasonably rational? I'll take your word for it I suppose. Your supposition of how we differ doesn't provide a sufficient answer.



And you are the one who raves on and on about being vague and to simplify things. *Shakes head*. The issue is about knowing and not knowing. And "this reminds me of" tells me that these are the words used by someone who doesn't.



So what do you call your "noodling"? Criticising specific points? You say that if I was less vague I would have specific points criticised, but hold up, that is EXACTLY what you have been doing! I think you need to look at your posting behaviour and what that says about what you are saying.

Well, it was sometime after the release of addendum (and before I became a Baha'i, which was nearly a year ago) that I discussed the Venus project here. It was a post within a thread, although I forget which topic. I recall quite clearly that he was amazed that certain people support the Venus project, and went on to justify that Somalia developed during its period of anarchy. The antagonism which he has displayed towards you - I never got any of that.

Now, I'm no anarchist (never was) - the Baha'i model of an ideal state is excellent as far as I'm concerned. But I do recall that I did have many doubts emerging about the Venus project after that discussion ended.

You keep hanging around, even though you said you were leaving.

As I have explained earlier, you are not open to9 these ideas, you you are ALWAYS gonna claim that I didn't do a good enough job to convince you. Afterall, I wasn't even trying to convince you.

And besides, I was under the impression from Khan Sama that you were ALREADY familiar with The Venus Project. Is this person lying?



I would say that since you persisted in your noodling, we did go step by step through a huge range of issues.



So you really DON'T understand The Venus Project.