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

Post Reply New Topic

That differs greatly from your previous claim. Now you are saying that he has always been critical of it. And never fully understanding of it either. Since he has never claimed to know anything about the venus project, and in fact stated an obtuse reluctance to even bother, I would safely assume that I understand it better than any of you.

The point is he has been this beligerent and I'm the one being accused of always being "too vague". How can you get blood out of a stone? Well shouting at the stone and calling it non-porous will not do it.

Awsomelyglorious has always been like this with me. Which makes me wonder why he asks so much of me and my posts. I dare say if you are willing to let someone else make up your mind about something that you have been interested in, then you could be swayed in ANY direction. If I wasn't as strong willed as I am, if I listened him and only him and if didn't know as much about The Venus Project as I did, then he would probably have forced me away from it. However I decided to do my own research, and do my own thinking. That is my point. You need to make up your own mind, and do your own thinking. Not to let anyone spoil anything for you and use your own noggin!

I tend to doubt that, and this matches past criticisms I have made of your claims.


Or it is because your ideas have some similarity to communism. As it stands, the Venus Project doesn't know anything about communism, but it has a number of similarities to the communist ideal.


Why? Why wouldn't consumers just be wealthier and consume different things? For example, if my computer doesn't break, or my car lasts longer, then wouldn't I just go to the movies more often, or eat out more often, or something else?

I mean, this is a clear invocation of the parable of the broken window brought up by Bastiat. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/That_Whic ... s_Not_Seen

Additionally, planned obsolescence only has a lot of benefit to it if the company in question has a very high level of market share and if other companies are expected to do the same in the same market. US Auto was known for planned obsolescence in the 60s and 70s, but then Japanese auto-makers stormed into the markets and didn't play by those rules, which forced changes in production. Additionally, profit-based short-cuts aren't really too bad, so long as the consumer's expectations are essentially met. Why? Because some products are expected to do better than others. For example: when I buy headphones, I usually buy the cheapest brand I can get, and what this means is that a significant portion of the time, the headphone will not work or break easily or something else like that, but I expect that, and although a more expensive headphone might last longer, I would rather just have a set of back-up headphones for whenever one might break and handle this risk through quantity, rather than quality. So, in this case, the horrible quality of my headphone isn't a significant problem but rather it is part of my cost-benefit analysis. The only possible problem is externalities.


Ok, well, a good solution is always more competitive markets. Planned obsolescence cannot exist in a state of good competition. Additionally, industry has no care about the business cycle, because whether one occurs isn't ever going to be dependent on their actions. So, talking about planned obsolescence is not very relevant to cyclical consumption, and the phenomenon itself seems questionable given that luxuries continue to get better as disposable income rises, and given that high savings rates do not seem very problematic.


This isn't necessarily efficient. It is better to instead offer multiple different products with different longevities, as I might not want to buy or sell something designed to last a very long time, but rather I might just want to use something temporarily or even might be likely to lose something so I wouldn't want to use all of those resources.

The monetary system would be impossible if one got rid of variation, yes. However, I don't buy your theory of cyclical consumption.


Ok, but you'll have to define better what that means and how this will work, so that way we can understand the processes. All economies are "resource-based" as resources are the question of economics.


Removal of currency will either be communist or an instantiation of a gift economy by most people's definitions. The fact that you are proposing egalitarianism means that your idea is likely a subset of communism/socialism, regardless of what you want to say.


Well, ok, but the nervous system isn't in control of all of the elements of healing wounds. Really, a lot of it is a natural, and unconscious action by the body. I would think that even a "vegetable" could heal their wounds in most cases.

That being said, the reason why we can trust the body's solution isn't because it is the body, but rather because the idea has been tested so many times and likely compared to a number of variations that didn't make it. As it stands though, not all body reactions to trauma are optimal. think about comas, the brain swells to cut of it's own supply of oxygen. To go even further, the comparison between the body and human society breaks down very easily, in society each person matters and is an individual unit with individual goals, but in the body we can remove cells with little concern for their welfare. In society there are ongoing questions of purpose, but in the body there is no purpose, it exists because its predecessors were selected on their ability to maintain their existence.

That being said though, capitalism is a lot more evolutionary than the Venus project. It really resembles an evolutionary system a *lot* more than most other systems devised.


It depends on how you define "free", as this is a squishy word with multiple ideas defining it. Free from every economic concern relative to their desires? No.


Well, actually it is both. It is a question of purchasing power as purchasing power is our means of accounting for resources. It could be a question of resources too, but we don't get into those matters because we don't like having to worry about shortages very much at all. As it stands though, computers represent resources, as does installation of the cable, as does maintenance of the deal.


Well, many companies will allow you to take unpaid leave. That being said, holidays have to worry about the room in airplanes, the fuel and the working hours of people who work there, as well as allocation of hotels, their rooms, and their staff, as well as luxuries provided by the hotel, and of course anything you want to look over. And purchasing power is our way to account for this.


This is the only legitimate example, where only purchasing power is the relevant concern. Even then this is also part of our accounting system. Why? Because even though almost no additional costs were made in the actual DVD, the issue is that there were costs in making the materials and we also need to show what is really successful and allocate money towards success so that way future creators will try to make themselves successful.


Only one of those was valid, and that was IP, which is a solution to issues in our accounting system.


Ok? Profit is part of our system's accounting method. I mean, moaning about profits shows a failure to understand economics. In economics the real question isn't whether profits are good, they clearly are. They may not be the most moral thing, but they are certainly a good thing within the system. The real question is just whether the profits are matching underlying realities as well as they should, and the economic debate is whether our system has effective matching or less effective matching. The fact that we are currently choosing unclean and unrenewable sources doesn't prove anything though unless you can show that this would be different if the underlying reality was matched better, and even then proving this still doesn't disprove the system given that if this is the case, one of the policy recommendations IS to have the government or governing groups alter the effectual prices in the accounting system so that it works better.


It must be recognized that fantasy rarely matches reality. In this case, any smart company would actually leap on the opportunity just so they could steal away all of the profits of their competition, or even get out of paying the guys that they currently get energy from.


I doubt that refusal will be so ideological. When people more and more start thinking that alternatives will be cheaper and better, they are going to keep on pushing for new ideas on how to make this kind of stuff. Hopefully by the time we get to our last barrel of oil, it won't really be necessary.


Umm..... convincing people of things is actually a good thing. Most of us would ask you to try to convince of your ideas. That's why this forum exists, so that way people try to convince other people of ideas. Essentially we want a "marketplace of ideas", where each person sells something different and we improve our ideas through the competition or even buy parts of the other idea.

Orwell is blunt, and you really aren't doing the thing that we actually want you to do. We want you to sell this idea, so that way we can examine it more thoroughly, and reject it. We also want companies to go do a job at selling their products that is at LEAST good enough so that they tell us what we want to know. If you just saw rows of computers and stuff at a store, and the guys there didn't tell you their specs or anything like that and just said "you can take them or leave them" we probably won't go to that store again, it is just poor policy.


I don't love genocide. Maybe I should study it more deeply? I also feel kind of negative towards rape, too.


Umm.... it is a fringe ideology. That is without regard for whether it is a good idea or not. I don't see how you can wiggle your way out of that.

No we weren't. We have our brains because of processes happening billions of years before we were born, but not for a "reason". Additionally, figuring out ways to kill each other was probably part of this process as well, there is a reason why people today aren't Neanderthals, and that reason is because our ancestors killed them all.

You haven't explained anything. Instead, you go around throwing out terms, and saying some things, but you never actually get anywhere close to an idea or a proposal or anything like that.


Something being figurative and something being a logical implication are different statements. Figurative means that it was said indirectly. Logical implications means that something may not have been said or intended, but that if the rules of logic are applied, we find outcomes that lead to a particular conclusion. Learn to read.


Umm..... the Great Depression doesn't refute the idea that the Federal Reserve is a stabilizer. I am not misunderstanding you, you're misunderstanding Orwell, as Orwell stated that business cycles have generally been more stable after the Federal Reserve. I stated that the Great Depression was partially caused by poor Federal Reserve policies that we don't plan to repeat in the future, which is to say that the Great Depression does not refute the idea that the Fed is a stabilizer, as one destablizing mistake doesn't mean that the fed isn't a stabilizer, just like one case where I misuse a first aid kit might not prevent me from being a doctor.


Yeah, I am critically analyzing your thoughts. If you convey yourself in analogy then I have to interpret that analogy to a point where I can make logical sense of it and see where it applies or fails to apply. Unless you are going to say that you say BS for no reason, I do have to interpret you and interpreting you means that you are making claims that I can agree or disagree with.


Given that you've labeled everyone else as being stubborn, irrational, and so on, I think it really does provide a sufficient answer. After all, most of these people are not labeled as such by everyone else who deals with them. So, either the world is wrong, or you are wrong. And while maybe a schizophrenic can be correct about his aliens, we don't consider it too strongly.


Ok? You haven't found a contradiction. There is no contradiction in saying "I should not be vague" and "another person might be vague but I should address what they are likely pointing to because this vagueness may have a point if I can interpret it". I was actually thinking about dismissing the "blindman issue" but I decided to try to interpret it into something I could make sense of.

The issue is not about knowing or not knowing, the issue is about your idea and whether it is a good idea or not.


I don't call it noodling, Sand called it noodling.

Citing the matter of cyclical consumption is the best you've done, and that's not your system, but the criticism of the current system. For the most part, we are not criticizing specific points about the Venus Project, you know that, you've stated that. So, you and I are actually in agreement on that matter. Now, you say that we are being specific, when this entire time you are attacking us for being vague and lumping everything together. You could just be misinterpreting me, but really, I think any charitable intepreter would have gotten my point.

*sigh* I am going to leave this matter well alone now. I think I made my criticisms and you aren't a reasonable person.

You just demonstrated my point. "THE VENUS PROJECT IS SO BRILLIANT THAT NO REASONABLE INFORMED PERSON WOULD EVER DISAGREE WITH IT!! !"

No, it's actually just nonsense.


Actually, the fact that I have regarded your ideas as BS is a pretty good indicator that I am reading your posts properly, and it appears that AG at least agrees on that point. I have not called your ideas communist, I have just noted that much of your rhetoric is similar to what I see coming from communists, and that is usually a poor indicator as to the intellectual rigor of an idea.


OK. Explain, in clear, concise, specific terms, what that means. All economies are "resource-based." Economics is the problem of allocating resources, so a non-resource-based economy is just a contradiction. Explain how the Venus project allocates resources and assigns work, and how it is able to do so more efficiently than the free market system.


No. Get this through your skull. There will ALWAYS be limitations in any system. One system may be better than another, but to claim that any system will transcend such limitations demonstrates a complete disconnect from reality.


This analogy is meaningless. If you think the body's response to injury is "optimal," you obviously are not familiar with anatomy. If you seek to model social and economic systems off of human physiology, I just question what in the world you could possibly be thinking.


If by "free" you mean "free from the constraints of reality" (as implied by your definition of freedom) then yes, I refuse to accept the possibility that humans can ever be free. Fortunately, I have a more realistic definition of freedom than you do.


Um... you have yet to give me a single example. Computers cost resources to produce, we can't just make them out of thin air. Etcetera to all your other non-examples.


My claim that is a fringe ideology is an objective fact. To deny that would simply be delusional.

That is your assumption. Any monkey with an argumentative mentality can argue their uniformed state of mind about something they don't completely understand. Are you aware of the phenomenon of a couple arguing about a certain route they are travelling in a car? One party argues one route, and the other argues another route. The only difference is, one of them KNOWS the correct route, and KNOWS that the route suggested by the other person will lead in the opposite direction.

You seem to be assuming that I am implying that The Venus Project is perfect. No. The venus project is not perfect. It is just a lot better than what we have.



Once you understand it, then you can have the right to discount it as nonsense. I can discount quantum physics as nonsense if I so wish to. Doesn't mean it is. However lets just say for argument's sake that quantum mechanics IS nonsense, if I completely understood the proposal, then I could rightfully state for a fact that it was nonsense. Because I could prove without a shadow of a doubt that it was. No question of opinion, no question of perception, a case of fact.



No, it's an indicator that you are not willing to consider any idea that I convey. Any monkey with a persecution complex could call an idea BS. It's the easiest thing in the world to do. It just requires a closed mind and an unmovable opinion. Doesn't mean that opinion holds any water. Your perception seems a little clouded when it comes to my ideas.



Not that this would penetrate, but:

A cybernated system, programmed with all the knowledge known to man, and equipped with sensors all over the world used to monitor resources worldwide manages resources using a systems approach. As I said earlier, in a similar fashion to how the nervous system reacts to an injury.



Ok, satisfy my curiosity, given your knowledge of The Venus Project, EXACTLY what limitations are present in the system?



Ok, please, elaborate. Don't be vague. Grant me the insight of your vast anatomical, physiological and medical knowledge as to how this applies to this specific point. Come on, you complain about me being "vague" now please, elaborate.



I mean free as in free of our CURRENT economical restrictions. Beyond that, I have no frame of reference.



Computers will still be produced en mass whether you purchase one or not. This is not a question about you being responsible for a little resource waste, the resources are being wasted, no, plundered, just so you could have a choice of flashy extras that are duplicated 20 times over by 20 different companies producing the same flashy extras in the hope that you will choose their product over all the others.


My claim that is a fringe ideology is an objective fact. To deny that would simply be delusional.[/quote]

Ok then, please, PROVE IT. I dare you.

No, you are mistating his assumptions. Orwell isn't assuming perfection, but rather he is stating that your mentality undermines the validity of rational disagreement, rational disagreement existing in most fields. This ends up undercutting the seriousness with which he regards your position.


Ok, but an ongoing issue is that you aren't conveying anything. If you were conveying something, we'd be criticizing the actual logical structure of the plan. That doesn't appear to exist to any great extent. In any case, your perception seems more than a little clouded when it comes to these ideas in the first place. As much as you criticize us for not knowing what we reject as nonsense, you are rejecting as nonsense a large set of mainstream economic theories that you don't seem to even have slight exposure to.


Um... ok? There are a few problems.

1) That's well beyond our technological proficiency, even assuming standard economic theory.
2) What about soft information? How are you going to have a computer system use information that cannot be effectively analytically defined.
3) This removes human beings from a significant amount of control over their resources.
4) There is almost no way that something that violates 2 is going to avoid being totalitarian.
5) That idea isn't even new, it was actually developed by communists.


You're missing the point he is making. The point he is making is that underlying realities have limitations built-in to it. The Venus Project cannot be said to ever be limitless but rather still will have these limitations.


I already cited one example, and that is how damage to the brain can cause swelling that leads to comas. The coma isn't caused by the initial damage but rather by the body's poor reaction.

That being said, I also pointed out that the only reason why bodily reaction can be trusted is because it has been tested over a very long period of time.


Just wait a few years, then we'll have new economic restrictions. Orwell's point is that economic restrictions will always exist. We can't all have mansions and own 200 cars.


Ok, but they don't produce infinite+ computers, but rather they try to match to the expected demand. That being said, the number of computers produced is limited, and each computer taken by one person will either be less that other people can use or require more resources allocated to computer production. We tend to overproduce more than underproduce simply because we can't figure out the right number and it is better to overestimate so that people who need computers can get them.

I don't get your point on the flashy extras. Are you saying that things that I use, like graphics cards, wi-fi, and things like that are just "waste"?


Umm.... let's see. Has your platform been adopted by one of the two major parties? No? Well, that's one evidence. Is there really much of a Zeitgeist party? Not that I've even heard of.

How about this: can you name a significant number of economists who side with your economic program? Well... that's another evidence.

How about a significant number of think tanks publishing policy recommendations to promote your ideas? Well... there is only Zeitgeist and the Venus Project.

Celebrated public intellectuals? Only Jacque Fresco and Peter Joseph, and the latter is best known for a set of propaganda, misinformation films that are openly criticized on factual grounds by better established public intellectuals.

Alright, how about this, if we had to estimate the size of your group compared to the following groups, which would be expected to be larger and which would be expected to be smaller?

Libertarians
Marxists
Anarchists
Greens

Well, libertarians have a significant number of public intellectuals, economists supporting their ideas, think tanks, and they do have a number of political parties. All of which beats the Zeitgeist movement, so Zeitgeist is already weaker in comparison.

Marxists have a few public intellectuals, have some ongoing intellectual influence, only in some economics departments but certainly in other departments. They also have some political sway. This also beats the Zeitgeist movement.

Anarchists? Well, anarchists have a few public intellectuals of minor note. They have a few economists supporting their ideas. They have a few think tanks. I don't think they have any political parties though. However, I still think that what they do have ends up beating the Zeitgeist movement.

Greens are also big, probably around the size of the libertarians in some ways. They likely have less economists. However, they have worldwide political parties, and they have think tanks and public intellectuals. And so, I'd have to put them well above the Zeitgeist movement.

So, it really seems to me that Zeitgeist/Venus Project is not as big as even many fringe political parties. But then again, I don't know what you want for "proof". I mean, seriously, what metrics? Is it possible to prove that there are no unicorns in existence? Is your question similar? How can you prove that Zeitgeist isn't fringe?

So this is just another load of "Capitalism is the bad!!!1!!" BS then?

And I suggest that you do not know the correct route. You have presented no evidence that would lead a rational person to another conclusion.


OK, so it's repackaged technocracy. The same objections that apply to technocracy apply. Perhaps the simplest criticism is the excessive centralization, when experience shows that decentralized systems are more flexible and generally more successful.


I stated that there are limitations in any system. By this I mean resources are finite: it is not possible for everyone to have everything they want, as the resources to meet that demand simply do not exist. There is nothing more to say on the matter. If you deny this, you're just plain delusional. Now, you may be able to make a case that some alternate system is more efficient than our current system at allocating finite resources to meet demands, but that is your case to make, not mine.


Then your statement is utterly meaningless. You just seek to replace our current restrictions with other restrictions, and you have given no evidence that the new restrictions would be less bad than the current ones.


You're kidding? In what possible sense is it not a fringe ideology? By definition, a fringe ideology is one outside the mainstream, and would generally be regarded as extreme. Are you trying to claim that the Venus Project or the Zeitgeist movement is mainstream? Heck, basically neither exists off of the Internet, and most of its followers are just deranged frothing Truthers.

To some extent. There are both positive and negative notions, as the idea is to criticize capitalism and propose a new and better system. The issue is that the criticisms of the current system aren't very solid, and the proposed new system isn't that great either.

Just think: If instead of proposing some technological means of distributing goods that would ultimately set of a chain of events leading humanity to worship a gargantuan fusion of worm and man, you could just, not purchase goods produced, distributed, or sold by corrupt companies.

Corporations can't remain in power if consumers refuse to give them their money.

I do agree with you on your last point, however what would take the place of the corrupt human interests? In our current economic system, corruption is rewarded. So human decisions should be removed from resource management. The viable methodology of circumnavigating the corrupt behaviour of power hungry corporations is an automated cybernetic resource management system. The machines control resource management, and nothing else. Machines are not corrupt. And in a society such as that as envisioned by the Venus Project, where you stand to lose just as much from breeding abhorant behavior than anyone else, there is no incentive for corrupt behaviour. There is no reward from tampering with the system, because it is a system that takes care of the well being of every human on the planet. No-one can reprogram the system to favour certain people, because that anomoly in the logical distribution can be detected statistically and tracked back to human sabotage, and such people with such a propensity will more than likely not exist in positions of capability to do so.

In a resource based economy as envisioned by The Venus Project, only 5% of the population will be needed to supervise, and maintain the automated systems, and to perform research into further optimised methodologies. And you will be in such a position if you have an optimal idea or suggestion that can be implemented. Such ideas are analysed by the cybernated database and either implemented or rejected based on whether the idea is optimal or not. So you will be interacting with the machinery because you have proposed your idea to it's improvement, but most importantly because you WANT to contribute to the betterment of humanity.

And the incentive is not for self-centered rewards or payments or medals or honour, but just that it is an honour to do it.

We at The Zeitgeist Movement, and hense at the Venus Project propose nothing less than the complete redesign of our world, because anything less would result in the same recipe for war, crime, poverty, corruption and destruction.

But corruption is only rewarded If the consumers choose to reward it.

Your project will not solve greed. you seem to think that nobody will be able to hack this system. that is naieve. Someoe will figure out a way to get away with it. you are also putting 5% of the population in control of all reasources. You seem to think that the logcal nature of the machine will prevent anyone in this group from manipulating it, but what if a cabal of hackers plots from within this 5%? They could fake honor or ideas to get into power. They could easily hack the system to trace back their own hacking to honorable moderators, who would be removed from power and replaced by the cabal's yes-men. it is a recipe for disaster.

And what about people who want less than they deserve for moral reasons? what about those who want more? Greedy people will still try and rob others, and people who want to avoid having a lot of possessions will have posessions forced on them.

And what if the machine malfunctions? How will this machine distribute goods? robots? if the machine malfunctions, it could use those as an army. What is it's ideal of the logcal way to distribute reasources changes and leaves people starving and the moderators can't work fast enough to fix it?

and these are just the problems on the surface. someone more versed in economics or computers could probably find more.

Capitalism is a mirror. If the companies thriving are greedy, it is because the consumers themselves are greedy. they would rather buy ten shirts produced by sweat-shop labor overseas than one shirt made by american crafstmen for the same price, no matter how superior the american made shirt is in quality and in disreguard to the long-term damage this will do to the nation's economy. But when the consumers see the product of their greed, they do not want to take responsibility for their actions. no, better to blame it on someone else. It must be the fault of the corrupt companies. The same companies the consumers themselves put into power. So they suggest all these new ideas to destroy the "corrupt" old system, the system they themselves made corrupt. Because they would rather surrender all their rights to a machine than admit that the reflection they see in the mirror is their own!

NO!

I would rather take responsibility for the actions I have made, and those made by my father before me and his father before him than go into denial, because by admittng that it was us that made things this way, we also confess that we all have the power to fix it. The road will be long and hard, narrow and winding. It will be prowled by bandits and con-men who will try and decive us and force us off our path. But it will be worth it, because at the end, we will still have our freedom, and we will have learned something about how to make the world a better place along the way.

Capitalism works in theory for the same reason democrocy works in theory: it gives the power to change the world to everyone.

Capitalism fails in practice for the same reason democracy fails in practice: only the wicked exercise that power.

Not necesarily. The reward is in the form of the self centeredness of profit. And that is corrupt behaviour. Not to mention also the corrupt behaviour that is implemented in order to acquire said profits. EVERYONE in the system is conditioned to crave it, and hense EVERYONE allows it.



First of all, this isn't MY system. This system actuially doesn't "belong" to anyone. For one thing, we do not believe in the idea of proprietary stances, and also this is based on a systems approach utilising the scientific method for human concern. Not a new or original idea, however never been realistically applied to resource management and social design.

Secondly, we recognise that greed is a byproduct of materialism and scarcity that is taught to us from a very young age. Greed cannot be "solved". We aim to OUTGROW it by initialising a shift in value systems.



Exactly. That is why we cannot contiunue to survive in this system. And we HAVE to outgrow it.

Even if you get rid of money, reasources will still exist. greedy people will still desire more than they deserve. People will have motivation to break the system, wether or not you believe they will.

People can not learn to move past greed by having a machine spoon-feed them. The only way to out grow the system is for our survival to depend on it. The machine you suggested will be a step in the wrong direction. If we are dependent on a machine to get along, we are no more free than if we are dependent on a goverment to get along, reguardless of if that machine or goverment is corrupt or not.

Honestly, almost all of that sounds like typical Communist talking points.

Anyways, more to the proposal (I am glad that you finally gave us some details): You say some sort of computer will basically run the economy. Now, obviously this computer must be programmed. If you can write a computer program to do something, you first need to come up with an algorithm for doing it. Is there an algorithm for centralized resource management that you know of? If so, I'd love to hear about it.

The best models are neoclassical models, and these models were actually advocated by socialists for planning the economy. The issue is that we now know that they would take up more computing power than is available to a supercomputer. Also, these models are probably oversimplifications in the minds of most people, including the ones who invented these things, so.... I don't think that this is even a good starting place.

I mean, the best I've heard it argued is that using these neoclassical models we actually can meet an idealized capitalist system, but the models are wrong, and the idea here is actually to beat what is even conceptually possible under capitalism.