The Zeitgeist Movement: Any questions?

Post Reply New Topic

Let me see if I understand you correctly: You deny that scarcity actually occurs in the modern world or is a problem?

If so... wow. A discussion with you just isn't even possible until you return to the real world. You're proceeding off of completely insane base assumptions.

No, I wasn't at all and that's perfectly clear to anyone without your bias; was saying that today we've the ability to effectively eliminate scarcity, if we want, and further that I can elaborate on the subject if interested.

Also I was responding to danandlouie. Do not think you can just butt-in with rude assumptions and insipid accusations and expect to be listened to or respected.

Your intentions here are clear, instead of empowering people with factual information, you're looking to emotionally smear & tear down anyone who doesn't agree with how you look at things. Thankfully some people are smarter than that.

Instead, please show some self-respect; if you want to join in, then learn respectful discourse. You won't be goading me with anything else.

Thanks!

I think you have Orwell confused with me. I do the emotionalism. He does pure and calm logic. He's right, though. You don't actually have any means to make scarcity "go away". Thinking you do is absurd.

I take it you didn't read Orwell's first post on this thread. Calling me a "freaking moron". A clear violation of the forum rules and hardly akin to "pure and calm logic". A rather irrational course of action which I am told he received a warning for.

Here's an example of how you can eliminate food scarcity OUTSIDE of the monetary system. Keep that in mind, coz one thing I notice is that immediately after I give these kind of examples people bleet out "but who's gonna pay for that?", so here we go.

You can grow food in hydroponic food farms in the middle of the sahara desert. It's just a case of tapping down to the water table. In a monetary system, this would not be a viable option. If it is however, then how come it hasn't been done? This is just an arbitrary example, but you will notice it is not economically viable within a monetary system. I wonder why.

Here's something else that CANNOT happen in a monetary system.

CANCER WILL NOT BE CURED.

In fact no preventative medicine of any kind that deals with ailments where the treatments and associated procedures are expensive, is promoted in a monetary system. I'll explain why.

Say tomorrow for instance you developed a simple, single pill or IV injection that is both a preventative and cure for all cancers. (I'm not saying it's probable. But I'll get to that in a minute). Say this treatment is simple, and easy, and even if a cancer patient took it, it would be a cure for their cancer. Does anyone realise what this would do to the economy????

GDP would plummet and MILLIONS of people will lose their jobs because they are employed in the field of the TREATMENT of cancer. You get rid of cancer, then where is the money gonna be earned from people paying for treatments?

Oh, will you have to jack up the price of the drug so that the money made can cover the gap of unit sales? How expensive do you think this drug will become then? Considering how devastating a blow this drug has just delivered to the balls of the economy, forcing it to hit the deck like a sack of spuds, who would be able to afford it?

So, with this in mind, do you really think the concern is to CURE, cancer? Or do you think the concern is merely to make money from TREATING it? You will realise that it is in fact GOOD for the economy for people to develop cancer. It is GOOD for the economy for people to become ill, and it is GOOD for the economy for people to suffer and die, because this is a worldwide multi-billion industry.

With this said, does it seem rather convenient that certain additives in our foods actually CAUSE cancer, and cancer causing drugs like tobacco are LEGAL? It is GOOD for the economy for you to buy those products, get ill, and spoon more of your hard-earned money back into the economy that got you ill in the first place.

Now with this scenario, I'm not saying that this kind of drug is attainable, however it is a good tool to demonstrate how our wonderful monetary-based economy is in fact a beneficiary of people constantly developing cancer, illnesses and sustaining injury, and as a result, will not promote, and in fact suppress and fight, the emergence of any technological or pharmateutical means to take that huge income away from the economy by in any way solving any of the problems we have today. Our current system THRIVES on perpetual problems and the perpetuation OF problems. And patchwork solutions for problems are only sought if money can be made form those patchwork solutions by the corporate power structure. Its the reason why you have a war on drugs, but not a war on homelessness. Coz there's no money in that problem.

Only in a system based on money would you get this despotism. And I hope some of you reading this who have had some experience with cancer consider this conundrum of monetary economics vs. public health.

Is this the kinda world you wanna live in?

What you are saying then is, "The Zeitgeist movement has a plan to end scarcity." Which simply tells me that whoever came up with it does not understand the most basic level of economics.

Look, resources are finite. As long as the laws of physics remain in place, that is a fact. If resources are finite, then scarcity exists basically by definition.


The issue isn't that you disagree with me. Plenty of people on this forum disagree with me on any number of issues. The problem is that you are either unable or unwilling to defend the ideas you promote in any rational manner.


That was a different thread, and it was a plain statement of fact based on the evidence available to me.


The reason it is not viable is because it would be either difficult or impossible to get reasonable crop yields from such farms. The Sahara doesn't have a whole lot of water, and it really isn't just a matter of "dig until you find some." I'm not a geology buff, but if there's one around I'm sure they can better explain some of the problems with that plan.


That actually is more a medical issue than an economic one. "Cancer" is not one disease, but rather a very broad name we give to any of millions and millions of possible problems. That means that it presents unique problems in every single case, and there cannot be a general cure for all of cancer.

To the rest of your talking about cancer, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window As AG has pointed out numerous times, a significant problem with your advocacy of alternative economics is that you simply don't understand mainstream economics well enough to criticize it. The problem you raise was resolved 160 years ago by Bastiat.

That if we want is the fundamental flaw here. Unless you are prepared to eliminate everyone who does not agree with the 'we' of your statement, 'we' includes every single human being. 'We' particularly includes those who benefit most from the existing system and, incidentally, who wield the power to change it.



"I disagree with your opinions and will therefore ignore their significance by suggesting that a rudely stated argument has no merit."



"I am a twofold hypocrite. Rather than provide you with factual information I will resort to an insult, suggesting you have an intellectual lacking compared to 'some people', those people being anyone I deem intelligent despite judging your own intelligence only on the basis of your contribution to this discussion."



"Make that threefold."



Finally something we can agree on. Though calling rule violation on a petty infraction seems a bit over the top. Sticks and stones, etc.



I disagree. It is plausible that an individual with enough personal resources might elect to build such a food farm of their own volition. It is idealistic nonsense to suggest that all such resource-rich individuals would willingly reject their possessions to enable your project. It has not been done because human beings are inherently greedy. Coincidentally, this is another hurdle that you do not appear capable of clearing.



Would you mind explaining that to the millions of patients whose cancer has gone into remission? Are you seriously suggesting that our existing system of economy has restricted scientific advancement? Cancer may or may not one day have a 100% recovery rate. By making this statement I can only surmise that your alternative RBE will somehow enable such a solution to be found. I would be very interested in seeing the data you have to support this.



This is a perfect example of using rhetoric to disguise an absence of factual data. Something which cults tend to excel at.



This depends entirely on the source of the cure, the cost of manufacture, the nature of the cure, etc. If it comes in the form of a vaccine then it will provide a constant source of revenue and the companies that take a hit from loss of revenue from existing treatments will find alternate source of revenue. This is rather common in a system of private enterprise.



Yes, I believe that there are sufficient scientists whose search for a cure to cancer outweighs their own need for personal gain. If a cure is found it will be made available. Unless your argument is that all human beings involved in cancer research are fundamentally selfish, which significantly increases the odds against you realising your utopian ideal.



Certain additives in our food are claimed to cause cancer, but this is frankly irrelevant. If you believe there is a conspiracy to spread cancer via the food supply then I would suggest you discuss it with your therapist. Tobacco is legal, but not mandatory. If you want to ensure you do not get smoking related cancer, do not smoke. By all means campaign against the legality of tobacco, but do not suggest that your ridiculous RBE will magically produce a cure for cancer.



And yet we have a functional society that, while admittedly flawed, is at least grounded in pragmatism.



This question is also irrelevant. What is relevant is that I would rather live in the world as it is then in some utopian fantasy land where a computer rations out resources and where individuality and free-thinking are coldly oppressed. If you want to make the world a better place, start small. Visit your elderly neighbours and offer to do their shopping. Stop and help a child who is being bullied by other children. Wasting your time and energy trying to develop a universal solution to all the problems of the world will only serve to narrow your vision.

A bit over the top? Maybe you should take this up with the individual who wrote the forum rules, if you are THAT convinced that infantile name calling is unacceptable in a so called "civilised" society. I'm not saying I was hurt by it. Far from it. I was quite amused that Orwell felt he should resort to such behaviour. However I recognised that it was unacceptable behaviour, and as such I lodged a complaint.



And I would disagree with you. I have never come across any concrete irrefutable evidence that humans are "inherantly greedy". greed, being the excessive desire for goods or wealth is picked up in the environment. Not pat of our genetics.





I explain this to myself all the time, plus I have a fair few friends who have gone through what I have, and they are ALL in agreement. Don't tell me about cancer. I've been there, done that. Next february will see me being in remission for 3 years. Neither Chemotherapy, or even combination radiotherapy is a cure. It is a treatment. The result is just a matter of how receptive the cancer is. In my case it was very chemo-receptive.



Yes I am. Coz our economy relies upon "labour for income". That means we humans have to keep our jobs in some capacity in order to keep the economy going. But it's not just scientific advancement that is held back. Look up a term called "Technological Unemployment".



The answer to this is simple. Outside of the restraints of a monetary system, we can not even FATHOM the possibilities. Just as you show a mobile phone to someone in the middle ages, imagine what we would have a few hundred years from now WITHOUT the restrictive concern "How much is it gonna cost?" Think about it.



Neither TZM, TVP or an RBE are a cult. You are jumping from derisive explanative to derisive explanative in order to keep your nagative light shining.





You are obviously not taking into consideration 2 things:

1. This is a preventative medicine. No repeat dose. And I have already said the single treatment is simple.

2. The millions upon millions of redundancies in the healthcare industry. The damage to the economy would be crippling and irreprairable.



Of course scientists working on cures for ALL diseases are some of the most altruistic people on the planet. But you know what, they aren't exactly the highest paid people are they. Footballers who are notorious in this country for beating/cheating on their wives, getting drunk, assaulting members of the public, and crashing their sports cars when they aren't pursuing their jobs of running around in shorts and t-shirt, sheparding a piece of leather into an outdoor cupboard, are paid THOUSANDS of times MORE than these scientists.

This scenario shows you where the priorities lie.

And why would I imply that they are all selfish? They are working on something that, chances are woulnd't even be realised within their lifetime. Which is exactly what I'm doing with my activist pursuits. Does that make both myslelf and them selfish? I wouldn't think so.

And the ideal of an RBE is NOT a utopia. You must unmderstand this. There is no such thing. The term utopia refers to a fixed end result of perfection. There is no such thing. We live in an emergent world and everything is in constant transition. Everything is always changing. There is no final frontiers. There is no utopia.






Irrelevant to you. That doesn't change anything.



My point, is that if industry really cares, then it would not provide products that provably do cause cancer. Especially if those products are addictive and we have pockets of our culture that culminate peer pressure to consider smoking "cool".

And the advancements in an RBE will not "magically" do anything. Your derision is becoming laughable. I'm saying that an RBE will by definitionnot be held back by money worries. Coz there will be no money.



So you're willing to stand by an inheranlty flawed system? If I were chritian I would pray for you.

Pragmatism is fine and good when applied to singular human endeavour, however to base an economic system on it is pure insanity. I'm sure you would feel wonderful if the person nearest and dearest to you died a horrible death of a PREVENTABLE wasting disease. Coz afterall, the economy must learn on its feet, doesn't it?

How many more preventable deaths are acceptable for our methods to be realised as utterly incompetent? Pragmatism? No, it's sheer cowardice that shys away from addressing the root causes of our problems and seeking solutions that aren't akin to mere patchwork.





Irrelevant for whom?



You obviously have no read properly into what an RBE actually is. Like I've said, if you read with bias and projection, you ain't gonna get it. You have to read it as INFORMATION in order for you to see the feasibility at all.



And what makes you think I don't pursue those small, but meaningful acts? Who are you to say that we have been doing these small things for centuries? This is the nature of grassroots activism. And I seriously doubt that taking into consideration the GLOBAL problems and seeking and advocating a system that gets to the bottom of those GLOBAL problems is at all restrictive or "narrows" my vision. In fact, quite the opposite. I would consider JUST helping those around me, and doing nothing further in respect to the larger order problems to be EXACTLY what you imply by "narrowing" your vision.

When you are fighting disease, you don't just go for the symptoms. You aim to erradicate the disease itself. Either that or you combine that with helping, or enabling the immune system to fight it. Now apply this principle on a large social and economic level.

This is why The Zeitgeist Movement exists.

For one thing, the particular thread the personal attack occured on is irrelevant. You still launched it. And you cannot try and rationalise it now, coz if it were a rational response, it would not be considered a personal attack, and you wouldn't have received a warning for it.

No personal attack, especially coming from you about me will EVER be based on fact, because for one thing, you don't know me. And I'm glad. Therefore, your attack is nothing more than an opinion. An opinion that you should have kept to yourself, hense why you were reprimanded for it.



When I say "Cancer I am referring collectively to the hundreds of conditions that are encapsulated. And of course you would think that a cure for all cancers wouldn't be found. Coz in a system based on money, cancer SHOULDN'T be cured, as I have explained.



Your supposition of this parable is interesting, but holds no water outside of a monetary-based economy. Sorry.

Last edited by Adam-Anti-Um on 19 Aug 2010, 6:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

Your post is full of examples of human greed and the many problems it causes. Your plan couldn't go into effect unless this greed suddenly disappears. What is your plan for convincing everybody that they should not own personal property? Mao and Pol Pot (them again) both had ways of convincing people that they had no claim to personal property. They used extreme violence. Do you have a peaceful plan for convincing people? Because a major hurdle to your plan is that an enormous number of people will actually lose from it and they are well armed. If you think that "greed" is part of our enviromental programming, what do you intend to do to counter this programming?

Of course, because human beings have become extremely greedy in this system. That doesn't mean I'm saying that greed is the underlying cause. And greed is a learned value, just like materialism, bigotry and apathy. I am not saying they will dissappear immediately, coz that is just unrealistic. These values will gradually phase out as we find they are no longer rewarded in a saner social and economic system.



This is a good set of questions I can incorporate into my radioshow. But off the cuff, there is no comparrison between an RBE and what Mao and Pol Pot advocated. For one thing, extreme violence, or ANY form of violence is just not acceptable EVER.

Umm..... you were criticizing a monetary economy's way of handling cancer. The Parable of the Broken Window is really an explanation of why your conclusion isn't necessary and also how it is easily not likely. If it is valid, then your argument about how a monetary system shouldn't cure cancer is invalid.


Pragmatism is fine and good applied to anything.


I don't know what would count as irrefutable evidence, honestly. To me, human acquisitiveness and self-interested pragmatism seems rather basic of an impulse, and the kind of impulse we would expect with a creature like human beings. I don't really think that there is a strong line between self-interest and "greed" either, mostly just that one is socially approved and the other isn't.


Not going to happen. The issue is that resources are limited, and there are trade-offs and other things of that sort. I stand with the people who say that "post-scarcity" is just a bit crazy. After all, it seems just necessary that there will be allocation issues given the limitations of construction methods, resources to be used, labor, and so on, and a lot of these are just built-in to reality.


Umm... it is a bit over the top. No, I wouldn't take this up with the individual who wrote forum rules because that could be problematic. However, in the past I have argued publicly that PPR should be run in a less restrictive manner. Certainly, I don't find what one person somewhere thinks ought to be a rule relevant to the social situation in PPR. I agree that your action seems a bit over the top. Frankly, in society, we have lots of laws that people casually disobey or ignore.


I agree with Orwell that his response is a rational response.

Your reasoning given kind of proves his case as well. His response being a rational response has no relation to it being considered a personal attack, or whether he received a warning for it. You've provided no argument, and frankly, we can think of a lot of rational personal attacks, so, your argument fails because a teleological model can be made for rational personal attacks.

You make absolutely no sense dude. Your suppositions are too continjent upon ifs, seems, and i dont thinks. This does not reflect upon the sound nature of my explanation of why the cures for cancer are a detriment to the integrity of the monetary-based economy.



I tried that approach as my job as a Clinical Support Worker on an infection control ward. It got me fired.



Really? That's nice.



Again, that's nice.




Yet again, that's nice. Life in society is not a discussion forum. I'm just glad that you aren't in charge.



I'm DEFINATELY glad you're not in charge.




I will say it again, I'm glad you are not in charge. There is NO JUSTIFICATION for personal attacks of any kind on this forum, or any forum. Coz believe it or not, it is possible to discuss any topic without resorting to infantile behaviour such as insults. It just takes a degree of decorum, decency and maturity. To say that you can "think of a lot of rational personal attacks" is essentially you saying that you don't feel you should retain a level of maturity akin to "respectful disagreement". And I hate to break it to you, but "rational personal attack" is a contradiction in terms. This is why this forum has rules. Coz there are members, such as yourself who believe you have devised loopholes around the rules.

Safeguards for people with disabilities especially such as the DDA speak for themselves.

Last edited by Adam-Anti-Um on 19 Aug 2010, 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Yes, a bit over the top. Why not practise some tolerance and seek to educate where you see a flaw, rather than criticise behind the banner of forum rules? Sure it is impolite, but it was hardly a personal attack, just a petty name-calling.



Human nature leads us to compete to be the Alpha within our respective societies. This best enables our genetic code to be passed on to the next generation, and is a common behavioural trait in social mammals. Such endeavour is geared towards having the best food, the best choice of mates, the best territory. In modern society we have a formalised method of keeping score, but our competitive nature remains intact.



You no longer have cancer, ergo you were cured.



At no point here do you explain the rationale behind your viewpoint that science is harmed by a monetary based economy. You simply state that it is so. Considering the advances we have made over the past 200 years in the field of science and technology - which came about precisely because of private industry and the wealthy seeking new ways to become wealthier - I find your lack of reasoning only serves to support my assertion that your opinion is flawed.

Besides, historically the biggest spur to scientific discovery has been conflict, not harmony.



I asked for evidence that your RBE model would speed up the discovery of a global cure for cancer. I see no mention of this in your answer. And for the record, that mobile phone would not be possible were it not for the modern day economic system creating a market for such technology to be developed and mass produced.



Strawman argument. Deal with the points I made without subjecting my words to your own interpretations please. I made a very clear statement; "Something which cults tend to excel at.". This statement contains no insinuation that TZM, TVP or RBE are cults, it merely draws a parallel between advocates of RBE and cult mentality.

My 'light' is one of discernment, not negativity. If your system is viable it will stand up to scrutiny. It does not.



1. A preventative medicine that will always have a market for as long as new human beings are being made by existing human beings.

2. Pure conjecture. Those people will not necessarily be made redundant. The companies that fund and profit from cancer research will reinvest their monetary and manpower resources into another way of making money. As I already stated, this is very common.



And the blame for this can not be attributed to our current system of economy. The economy does not cause tribalistic behaviour, nor does it cause footballers to cheat on their wives. This same problem will persist in an RBE. If I can be philisophical for a moment, our sole reason for existence is to pass on our genetic code to the next generation. You object to footballers cheating on their wives, I accept that this behaviour is virtually guaranteed in any human society.



Either they are altruistic and therefore motivated to achieve the goal that you claim can only be realised in an RBE or everyone involved with cancer research is inherently greedy and will prevent a universal cure from being developed. That you have just compared your idealistic propoganda with the laudable efforts of medical researchers is ridiculous.



I believe you are confused as to the actual meaning of the word utopia. With respect to your own standards on enlightenment, I suggest that you do a little research before attempting to argue whether or not your RBE is a utopia.



Irrelevant to the subject matter.



And your point that industry does not care about anything other than profit is a fundamental issue with the RBE that you have continuously failed to address.

The products are not addictive, the drug that they contain is. Every smoker has the option to derive their nicotine from non-harmful alternatives yet not all do. Smokers make an informed choice every time they light up.



Unless you can supply a genuine reason for your claims that an RBE will aid advancement of medical science better than the current model, with properly researched data rather than clumsy conjecture I can only assume that your belief is that either a divine being or a wizard will be responsible. Far from being laughable, my derision of your complete lack of factual evidence is entirely justified.



No system is without flaws. Knowledge is improved on via application and revision of ideas, not the conception of ideas.



Our present system of economy has firm roots in pragmatism. As you have so far failed to prove that you have a viable alternative, your diagnosis of 'insanity' is an unsound one. If my nearest and dearest died from a preventable disease I would be personally upset for the loss of my loved one, it would not initiate an immediate and radical shift in my views on ill thought out and idealistic fantasy worlds.



Do not confuse rejection of your views with evidence that those opposing you are not interested in seeking solutions to problems. I am not arrogant enough nor deluded enough to suggest that my obsession with an impractical and idealistic alternative is better without any evidence to support my claims.



Again, irrelevant to the topic at hand. We are discussing your belief that an RBE is attainable and realistic. What kind of world I desire to live in does not matter in that context.



An RBE is a non-existent idealistic vision that will never see the light of day due to a fundamental lack of its advocates to provide anything resembling an action plan, sound scientific data or anything other than obfuscation and evasion when subjected to scrutiny. I am well aware of what an RBE is - a pipe dream.



Your seeming obsession with nonsensical RBEs.



Could you clarify what you mean by this please?



The nature of activism is to engineer a change in society to suit the desires of the activist, not to aid people. Although the aims of some activists are altruistic, this is not a universal fact.



You have not considered the global problems as anything but a means to justify your beliefs without providing an actual solution that eliminates these problems and that is practically achievable. Your vision is narrowed because you have latched on to a vision shared by a minority, hence restricting your openness to any alternative.



Socio-economics are not comparable to a disease-addled body. You are not fighting a disease, you are promoting a goal which lacks anything resembling application or practical steps.

Oh dear. Of course petty name calling is a personal attack. Hense why action was taken. Maybe you should read the forum rules and understand why they exist.



I would disagree. Any critic that supposes this as "human nature" does not consider the thousands of years of evolution based on scarcity. Of course you're gonna get social stratification and aggressive behaviour in a pride of lions, coz they live within scarcity. There's not enough to go around. They don't have technology to create an abundance. I have seen no evidence that genetics and "human nature" is responsible for this behaviour.



I take it you know virtually nothing about cancer. I have only been in remission for 2 1/2 years. After 5 years I get declared "All Clear" however it is perfectly possible for me to come out of remission at any point throughout my life.

As Rascall Flatts said "6 chances in 10, it won't come back again"

I have not been cured. I have been given respite. That is what the word remission actually means.



That is because it is not my job to place this knowledge in your head. That is why I said you should research technological unemployment. So that you can realise under your own steam that what I'm saying has basis.



I would reccomend the book "The Singularity is Near" by Ray Kurzweil. In fact, any of Kurzweil's material.



I would disagree. There has been no evidence of this.



*sigh* I don't need to spell it out for you little timmy. You can do your own research as soon as you have finished with your crayons.



And this proves.... what? If you are not insinuating, then why draw the parralel to begin with?




And one thing that shines brighter is the evidence of how you have reviewed the evidence without bias and projection.



Do your economics books by any chance have a penguin, puffin, or ladybird on the spine?



Another way of making money? How about when we solve more and more of our social and economical problems? Have a think about what you are implying by the aim to make money off problems, and the fact that our economy is fuelled by the profit motive.



How do you mean "tribalistic"?



I'm not saying it does. However this behaviour is rewarded.



You have not read and/or absorbed the fact that before the establishment of an RBE, a shift in values will occur. It can't happen any other way.



This is good. i agree with this in part. However this isn't our sole reason for existance. For example, people who are either born incapable, become incapable and chose not to pass on their genes, would have no purpose to exist whatsoever. Myself for example, I'm infertile due to the chemo I have gone through. That would mean I have no reason to live now.



We have never known a society that holds values different from our own. So the supposition that any societal value system will be the same as our own is a matter of presuming into differing frames of reference.



My quarrel is with the construction of the economic model we currently have. That is not to say that everyone contained within has matching intentions.



This doesn't serve to show YOUR definition whatsoever. You have only succeeded in stating that your beliefs differ from my statement.



Oh, I do apologise proffesor.



Of course I don't address it with an RBE. Coz in an RBE ther IS NO money. Hense, there IS NO pursuit of profit.



The product IS addictive becuase they do not sell pure nicotine. The product contains nicotine and hense is addictive. Also the act of consuming is an addiction in society so both the product, and the mentality of the product is covered with the fact of addiction.



Exactly.



Would you be open to such information? Coz so far you have not at all.




EXACTLY!! !! That is why an RBE is not a utopia. It is not perfect. Just a lot better than what we have. One of the many differences between a monetary-based economy and an RBE is that an RBE is contingent upon, and wholly fascilitates the idea of continual change, continual revision, and continual optimisation.

This is something that cannot be fascilitated in a monetary-based economy, because it is a system built upon values and laws that were made hundreds of years ago. We are stagnating.



Well, that depends on whether you have this "idealistic fantasy world" in mind, which the RBE is not. You call it such because you do not understand it, and hense you ridicule it.

So if you found out that either yourself, or someone you cared for was a victim of say, the Bayer drug scandal, would you seriously STILL support the profit motive????



Then please, enlighten me with your better idea.





Actually, if we really wanna get out the fine tooth comb of relevance, since I created this thread, and I have stated many time here that I created this thread to ask for people's questions, and therefore, any discussion would be irrelevant to the "topic at hand". If you scroll up to see the title of this thread, you will notice that a "discussion", or rather this has descended into a debate about an RBE's feasability, is irrelevant.



Your opinion. Nothing more. For another thing, your opinion is tainted by a lack of knowledge. There are hundreds of thousands of people worldwide SO FAR who have actually reviewed the information objectively, and hense would disagree with you.





Ok first off, make up your mind whether I am obssessed, or seem obssessed. Second, my commitment to pushing forward for an RBE does not leave no room for my acts of altruism.



I can't believe I have to spell this out for you. Ok, I'll phrase it as a rhetorical question. Is altruism nothing more than a modern invention?



For one thing, you are referring to some twisted interpretation of activism, and second it is GRASSROOTS activism.



Oh dear. But then again, I will give you the benefit of the doubt coz you don't know me.



Here's a lecture by Peter Joseph called "Social Pathology"

http://vimeo.com/10707453

Ok guys, I do apologise, I did say that I won't get pulled into any debate, but these wonderful chappies are so compelling it's hard to resist them!

I really do enjoy discussing these issues, however I did create this thread for the express reason to ask people questions, so I will do my utmost to stick to that. As such, I will do my utmost to not be tempted to debate or discuss anything further.

The information of anything I talk about is freely available in books, films, music and the internet.

In order to get this project going, you will have to convince 6 billion people that it is a good idea. Telling people that they should go away and not talk to you until they have convinced themselves is not going to work. If you are unwilling to even try to convince people it is a good idea by answering every argument, you will fail (and are in fact failing). Christian evangelists don't tell people, "go read the Bible and don't argue with me again until after you have read it". No. They quote relevent chapter and verse- their version of showing people the research. The job of conversion that you have given yourself is considerably more daunting than what evangelicals face, and yet you won't even do the modest attempts at conversion that they do. If you want to convert people, telling them that they should leave you alone until they have converted themselves simply won't work.