The Zeitgeist Movement - Podcast show now online!

Post Reply New Topic

As promised I have returned to tell you of my podcast show where I answer questions about The Zeitgeist Movement and the proposal of a resource-based economic model.

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/ta ... 995&cmd=tc
Above is the link to my TalkShoe page where you can listen to all of my podcasts in their full hour length, download them and much more,

http://www.youtube.com/user/AAUTZM
However if you don't have the time or the patience for a full hour all in one go, above here is my youtube channel that showcases all my podcasts in bitesize 15 minute chunks.

I have no more time for trolls, so If you post with the intention of debating/flaming/insulting invalidating me then I'm not gonna bite for you. If you have any LEGITIMATE, DECENT AND INTELLIGENTLY THOUGHT OUT questions, then I can answer them for you, but please, and you know who you are, if you are STILL of that persuasion, those that have trolled me in the past for pages going into the double figures with no intention whatsoever of having an actual intellectual exchange resulting in said threads having to be locked due to your animosity, I'm not gonna feed you anymore. I left this forum months ago coz of trolls with a chip on their shoulder and I have returned in the hope that they have grown up.

Anyway, for those of you who recognise that we need a change in how we orient ourselves economically and socially, then I hope this is food for thought.

Adam-Antium

So if we strongly disagree with the movement and we wish to debate the things they state that are clearly wrong and dishonest, we're trolls, right?

That's pretty close. If you take a look at the locked thread he is referring to you will find that it is a thread that he started (and was locked at his request) where he was asking for questions to use on that podcast but didn't want to discuss on this forum. If anyone was to listen to one of them and ask a question about it he will probably tell him to listen to the next one.

If you do have a legitimate question(s) that you want answered coz you are actually interested in having answered coz you wish to know more about the movement and it's proposals, or if you have legitimate concerns about it and you actually want them addressed, and you want to learn and not argue, then I will answer them for you.

If not your statements will qualify as mere opinion insertion, or in the case of attacks, trolling. I would prefer not to ask for this thread's locking as well considering that the previous threads I actually created to have an intellectual exchange and learning experience for those who engaged in the thread. What I learned however was that people were merely insulting me and attacking me with ad homs and logical fallacies in order to dominate me with their opinions and to get me to shut up.

If you have an issue with the movement that you wish to discuss and actually learn, then I'm willing to discuss it to reassure you. I am not however here as a bouncing board for your projections that you wish to just fire at me without wanting to learn anything. That I don't personally have time for on here anymore.

So yes, if you just wanna fire things at me and give opinions, then I'm not gonna try to change your opinion. Opinions do nothing coz they're not based on fact. However if you come to me with a concern that you want more information for coz you wish to understand it better then by all means, ask.

This is a DISCUSSION forum. Not a debate forum or an opinion firing forum. Therefore by its very nature you should see the futility of everyone simply firing their opinions without wanting to learn anything. Debate is predicated on winning or losing. Discussion is predicated on the actual sharing, exchange and willful transition of ideas because of that exchange.

So if you don't wish to learn and merely wish to argue then I have nothing to dicuss with you. Coz that achieves nothing besides everyone having stated their opinion, and then that's it.

Kind of like a communal laundry room that everyone puts their dirty laundry in but instead of going in there to get it washed, everyone just chucks it in and leaves it without wanting it washed and expects the person who works in that room to just keep their dirty laundry. Without the sorting out of everyone's washing and actually washing it and giving it back, that room is essentially a dumping place. That isn't what this forum is for. Now by no means am I attempting to impede upon your freedom to post opinions, by all means, please do. I'm just stating my reasons for not entertaining them here anymore, hence not turning this thread into similar debates that never get anyone enywhere.

And if you do happen to ask a question that I have already answered on my podcasts its far more efficient for me to direct you to my answer that I have previously worked on. So if you do actually wish to learn it would be a good idea to either listen to my podcasts first, or consider the possibility that your question will be answered by myself directing you to a specific podcast. In which case I'll even give you an exact time point reference. So I can't say any fairer than that.

The above statement pretty much confirms what I always suspected but couldn't confirm because the “show all posts” button in your profile doesn't work; you only come here to promote the Venus Project and Zeitgiest movement. If you had looked at a few of the other topics in this forum, you would know how far that statement is from the truth.

You are not the only one that in unhappy about it. Many members of this site avoid PPR because of the combative and argumentative nature of this place, I have even seen indications that there are some moderators that are unhappy about it but Alex doesn't what to do anything about it so nothing will be done.

I am happy for you that you got your U-Tube channel and podcast show up and running, but I wasn't going to watch or listen to any of them even if I hadn't just had my guess confirmed that any question or comment was going to be answered with “go watch or listen to another one”. Maybe some members will, but I doubt it.

I listened to the podcast, I think you brought up some good points, but towards the end you say that people should not be entitled to their opinions because of their subjective nature. Could you clarify what you mean by that? Restricting someone's self expession sounds very dystopian to me.

I'm familiar with The Venus Project and their stance on criminality. I just don't believe that acts such as murder will ever disappear from society, do you think that effectively separating someone who acts out this way is even appropriate? What measures would be implemented to ensure the safety of others from violent behavior?

I personally think the RBE is a good concept, but I don't think one man is capable of laying out an entire plan for society without having some edges to rough out. What's wrong with hearing a few differing opinions?

I can't be held accountable for the fact that my "show all posts" doesn't work, I'm not a programmer of the site as as you know there's nothing that can be done about that. The fact that you have tried to see all my posts tells me that you are possibly trying to discredit me. Sure the vast majority of my interraction on this forum has been to promote this direction due to the high number of responses I have made have been on this subject, but may I ask what the hell is wrong with that? So I have to be a veteran just like you and have my fingers in every pie to be taken seriously? Gimme a break. One more thing if you actually did feel the need to hunt my posts down you will notice I have commented of a fair amount of varied topics. But of course the sheer volume of my posts in regards to TZM have made that the main thing I have commented on. But you can't seriously take that stance considering the fact that a great majority of people on here DON'T FEEL THEY CAN comment on every, single, topic on the whole site. I dare say there are a fair quantity of people on here who feel comfortable just commenting on one particular issue, or a select few issues that they feel passionate about and feel out of depth, or without anything useful to say anywhere else. Are you gonna hound all of them for not sticking their oar into every thread? Get real. I know, coz that's how I used to feel, and I've spoken with a fair number of WP members IN PERSON to know. What you're suggesting therefore is completely irrational and ridiculous.



Again, that isn't something I can do anything about. And just coz there are more people than just me that have gripes with how this site is managed then that isn't something to hold against me. I have tried to do something about it. I have messaged Alex personally and as of yet have not received any response so I know I have done my part. You're either part of the solution, or you're part of the problem.



That's fine. I wasn't ordering you to do anything and I get the impression that you feel I was, possibly because you have been here longer and you have more to say about more things on here than I do. But that doesn't however give you authority over me. It gives you no right to try to discredit me on THOSE grounds.

Surely you understand the efficiency of directing someone to something that you have already said as opposed to typing it all out again. Coz it is THAT that has turned my previous threads into the long winded debates that they have. Is it too much for me to ask people to DO THEIR OWN RESEARCH and CHECK THINGS OUT FOR THEMSELVES as opposed to me doing all the typing, thinking and action FOR them? I don't think so.

And for the record, just as I am about to do right now, and if you actually read my post properly then I said I would answer questions on here if they are presented in an amiable fashion. I have already stated that I would direct someone to something if they ask a question that has ALREADY been answered.

Last edited by Adam-Anti-Um on 11 May 2011, 5:22 am, edited 2 times in total.

Well first of all I feel I should thank you for being respectful in your questioning. It's a welcome change. Anyway, as for you request for me to elaborate I'd be more than happy to.

I feel that again I should preface this with the fact that I am well aware of how much stock we as a society and hense also as individuals put into opinions and their existance as a supposed staple of "freedom", however this is simply not the case. As our society has progressed with a strange angle of stagnation also in terms of societal operation, somewhere along the line we have been indoctrinated into the idea that our opinions are part of who we are. As such we consider them as part of our identity and put a HUGE amount of emotional investment behind them.

I can understand the poetic notion of opinions, or as you have phrased it self expression as a means to orient ourselves and communicate, however this behaviour has completely by its very nature, detracted and alienated itself from actual factual discourse. We seem to value subjective opinions over facts and impressions over evidence. Such behaviour is not efficient, fair or progressive. As a result we have become stagnant with dogmatic and unchanging views concerning the universe and also ourselves. This is termed as "mind-lock". It's the reason why Galileo was ostricised, discriminated and imprisoned purely for providing evidence of our heliocentric universe which disproved the ego-charged opinion that we live in a geocentric universe. It's the same notion that MANY forward thinkers, innovators, inventors, scientists, doctors, writers and many, many more besides, have been hounded and dominated by what we call the "self-appointed guardians of the status quo", because of one erroneous assumption:

That to be proven wrong means that YOU are wrong, and hence an inferior person.

This has occured because we have incorporated our opinions into our very identities and when we encounter information, or data that brings a change in this previously held opinion, we feel belittled, confronted, insulted and even attacked when we are told different than what we have previously held as truth. To think about this in a positive light, we should look upon and consider the act of being proven wrong a GOOD thing. In fact something to embrace and celebrate. Coz to be proven wrong is not a signal of failure. It is in fact a signal that you have been elevated to a higher level of understanding and awareness.

This mentality is one of the main barriers to progress. The change needed to make this world a better place must first occur within ourselves. As Mohandas Gandhi said:

"We must BE the change we wish to see in the world".

We must first recognise that our opinions whatever they may be are nothing but temporal. They are merely transitory stances on perceptual information that is subjective to our life experiences, and the bias of our 5 sense reality. And we must recognise that this is NOT a case of freedom.

Our freedom on this planet as individuals and as a society should ONLY be dependant upon what we can realistically do considering the fact that the only empirical and tangible constraints on us are the empirical laws of nature. For example:

I can have the opinion for the duration of my entire life that I can walk off the end of my roof and keep walking in mid-air, however if I try and put that opinion to practise I would most likely cause myself severe injury or even death. Now is it productive for me to HAVE that opinion? Possibly. It's debateable how I can rationalise that to myself, however it is NOT productive however, for my own personal health to try and actually follow through on my opinion with the mentality that I have a RIGHT to this opinion and reality MUST follow suit with what I perceive. In said case, I would feel entitled to be ABLE to walk on air, and gravity will teach me a damn good lesson.

Another example would be if two people, lets call them Larry and Ben are debating about what colour their living room wall is. Larry thinks its green and Ben thinks its blue. Now they can argue til the end of time about what colour it is, coz their individual percepotion arms them with differing opinions. Not even the color match cards you get from B&Q are managing to settle it. Now both these guys have their own opinion as to what colour the wall is, and since they feel they are ENTITLED to their opinion, neither of them are gonna back down. Now just at that moment Larry has an idea. He has access to a spectrum analysis device that can assess what part of the electromagnetic spectrum the colour of paint on the wall falls under and bingo, they have both ARRIVED at a conclusion using the scientific method. Not so much that they used an electronic device that is not subject to the fallible perceptions of the human brain, but because they have put opinion aside and allowed for a conclusion to be drawn using a means which has a physical referent to the environment.

This is what we mean when we say ARRIVING at decisions using the scientific method as opposed to MAKING them with subjective human opinion. A pilot can have an opinion concerning his altitude, however this is not sufficient, or accurate. When he ARRIVES at this conclusion by consulting the doppler radar readout on his instrumentation panel, he will know EXACTLY how far he is off the ground.

Now apply this train of thought to how we orient ourselves politically, economically or socially. What weight does opinion have when compared to the availability of hard, factual data? The reason being is that an opinion is just that. An opinion. If it was based upon fact and data with a physical referent, then it wouldn't be an opinion. As such, when it comes to our orientation on this planet, opinions serve as nothing more than a means to state a stance. This is an introduction to the the value of accepting that opinion exists merely as a temporal stance prior to the receipt of data in each respective scenario.



This is understandable given the fact that our behaviour has very, very deep roots in history, however the mistake we have made as a species is to overlook the environmental conditions that has symbiotically shaped our behaviour over time. The fact that we have lived within scarcity for our entire existance. And the time tested conclusion throughout history, is if you weren't violent, agressive and possessive, then you simply didn't survive.

I have addressed the issue of human nature in my "Dispelling Myths" podcast in Question 1 between 02:50 - 13:48, and the issue of murder on my "Misc. Q&A" podcast in question 1 between 02:36 - 13:34 and in part in question 2 as well.

When it comes to the formality of an act deserving of addressing then the perpetrator won't be thrown in a cell with little to no consideration as to what caused the behaviour like is done today. Instead these people will be put into social environments similar to how the Norwegian
government have decided to orientate an angle of rehabilitation. If you want to know what I mean, Michael Moore actually visited such a "prison" for when he was filming "Capitalsm a Love Story" but decided not to include it in the film. If you go to youtube and search for "A look at what an RBE "prison" would be like." you should find it. Truly inspiring stuff.

Now combine that with an orientation akin to a much more humane application of the rehabilitation principles of psychiatric hospitals and voila! Obviously I can tell even when typing this that even the mention of psychiatric hospital sounds like a fate worse than death, but when I say that I mean that the consideration is to understand and get to the bottom of what caused the sbhorant behaviour in the first place and seek solutions through that root cause. And not even to seek pharmaceutical methods either. We recognise that pharmaceutical solutions are just patchwork treatments either that invariably cause a hell of a lot of exacerbation in patient's psychology.

When it comes to the prevention of harm to others, then it is just a case of only partial segregation from society as a whole. Norway really has got the right idea when it comes to these things and it works. We should be learning from them.



Well Jacque Fresco has spent his entire life almost on the development of these proposals, however he's definately not the only one. One of the things that I feel especially excited about in regards to TVP's separation from TZM is that we are so much more free to collaborate and exchange ideas with as many organisations and movements as we can manage to make this change happen as soon as humanly possible. The possibilities are now so endless its unbelievable. You are absolutely right here, there nothing wrong with hearing other people out, and as the movement we have EVERY intention of doing just that. The more people we can converse with and progressively exchange ideas with, the better. As far as I'm concerned now, the separation was a wonderful thing to happen to TZM coz it has given us a reminder of our vulnerabilities and our responsibilities but also finally granted our freedom to speak with who we want to speak with and collaberate with who we want to collaberate with. I look to the future with a great sense of hope and openness now.

Last edited by Adam-Anti-Um on 13 May 2011, 8:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

Here's something to get you all thinking about this.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mkRFCtl2MI[/youtube]

Zetgeist Project describes a dystopia I would never want to live in. Luckily I will never have to.

When I look at utopian projects, I consider two things:

1)would I want to live there if this were a feasible project?

2)what stands in the way of this being a feasible project? Are the things that stand in the way insurmountable or could they potentially be addressed.


If the answer to question 1 is "no", then all I need from question "2" is to see whether there is anything I need to do to prevent this from happening or if it won't happen on it's own. In the case of Zeitgeist Project, everything I've seen on websites and videos reassures me that there is no chance of this project ever actually happening. So yay!

Zeitgeist Movement. I can understand you putting "project" since TVP are a "project" however we have gone our separate ways. TZM can now be termed as a sustainability advocacy organisation.



First off, can you actually elaborate on your reasons for thinking this? Coz making blanket statements proves nothing. Once you give your reasons we can then discuss it, otherwise it will be clear that you're only trying to make blanket statements to procure an "appeal to fear" fallacy without providing any supporting information.



You are absolutely 100% correct. You can go create a monetary-based economy for yourself and others who are like minded with yourself if you feel so inclined. No-one's stopping you. And no-one's forcing you to live in an RBE. The one thing you need to keep in mind however is that due to the fact that technology keeps progressing, and the fact that the monetary system is based upon infinite growth, on a finite planet, we are SPRINTING towards collapse.

You are completely free to go off and live however you want. Just don't harm any of us that wish to live sustainably.



First off, we have to consider and define what "utopia" actually means, and whether it actually exists in an emergent universe where everything is in constant transition, second you need to provide your evidence for stating that an RBE is by definition a "utopia", and third you need to explain why you have first called it "DYStopian" and now you're backpeddling and calling it "Utopian"



That is completely up to you. And it is also up to you to see for yourself to assertain whether the feasability and proposals are good enough for your consideration.



Like I said, when you look at the proposals themselves, it's up to you to ARRIVE at a decision.



You seem to be thinking aloud with this comment. What if the answer to question 1 was "yes"? Have you considered the other side of your scenario? You seem to only be pontificating upon the negatives side of your own rhetorical questions.

Ok. I'll just call it TZM from here on for the sake of brevity.





What constitutes a dystopia is a very personal and subjective thing. What constitutes a utopia for one person, can constitute a dystopia for another person, as is clearly the case here. So two people can look at the same society and one accurately calls it a utopia and the other accurately calls it a dystopia because those are subjective, based on how a person wants to live.

So why do I consider this dystopian? Because of TZM's core principle, that humans are "nearly clean slates when we are born and it is our enviroment that shapes who we are and how we behave".(quote from TZM website) I agree that enviroment is part of who we are, but disagree vehemently that we are nearly clean slates. If that were true, there would be no need for WP in the first place. But if this web site shows one thing over and over again, it should show that people are not born as clean slates but rather come hardwired with a certain neurology which is affected by enviroment but can't be utterly changed.

So why do I think that this whole "blank slate" idea creates a dystopia? Because it takes anti-neurodiversity to a whole new level, far beyond anything experienced by AS people required to adapt to an NT world (or schizophrenic people, bipolar people etc. etc.) The TZM paradigm envisions that everything currently considered human nature is actually just an effect of enviroment. There is absolutely nothing to support this but TZM asserts it anyway, saying that there is nothing to support the opposite idea is true when actually all of human history supports the opposite idea and this is now being actually mapped genetically.

Per another thread, I don't think there is no such thing as free will. But there really is such a thing as hardwired neurology. People who don't believe there is will attempt to bend the brain to fit their enviromental paradigm. That's fine if it's their own brain they're bending. But anybody else's? Not ok. TZM takes behaviorism to a level undreamed of by Skinner, Matthew Israel or any ABA professional. I don't want to live in a world where people think that basic neurology can be changed by enviroment. As an NT, I am very lucky not to have had to so far. Autistic people here have many horror stories of what it's like to live in a world that thinks enviroment can alter neurology. Thus I call it a dystopia.





I don't have to go create a money based economy. It's already here and I already live in it, along with >6 billion other people. If in fact the monetary based economy actually does collapse, maybe proponents of TZM can convince the survivors that an RBE is the way to go. How well this will work will depend on the survivors.

However, the entire globe is currently a money based economy, not collapsed (although individuals nations collapse from time to time). It will not just disappear, however much TZM wants it to. Barring a global collapse of apocalyptic proportions, it's here to stay. RBE is possible on very small scales, small enough that it's bid for resources doesn't buck up againts local governments. But any attempt to truly bring this plan to fruition would require oceans of blood in order to dismantle every currently existing government. I'm not on board with that. I realize that nowehere in the TZM website is there a prescription for oceans of blood. There just seems to be this idea that it will happen on its' own if only people would stop acting in the way they have acted for the last 100,000 years. My only actual worry about TZM is that it may attract some sort of Ted Kascinsky- type person who manages to get a dirty bomb and get started on the dismantling part. Apart from that, I have seen no evidence that the last 100,000 years of human psychology is a mere enviromental quirk that can be undone by a new enviroment.

Anyhow, my point is that I don't have to go off and find a place to create a money based economy. I already live there. TZM has to go off and find a place to create an RBE, since such a system does not currently exist. I will leave them in peace right up until the moment that they start encroaching on me.





I am using "utopia" and "dystopia" by their colloquial meanings of "place where it's wonderful to live" and "place where it's horrible to live" respectively. Since nobody but novelists and screenwriters sets out to intentionally create a dystopia, everybody who makes these sorts of plans does so with the idea that it will be a utopia- a wonderful place to live. That is why I used that word. I am not backpeddling. I am showing that utopia and dystopia are subjective terms, subject to how much a person enjoys a particular enviroment.

For example, North Korea is a dystopia for its' citizens (according to those who have escaped) and to outside observers who wouldn't want to live that way (which is apparently everybody else in the world, since nobody tries to emigrate there). But to Kim Jong Il, it's a utopia, one he carefully crafted to fit exactly what he thinks a perfect society should be. I'm sure there are high-ups in his government who also agree, or he'd have been shot by now.





I did. And they aren't. Other posters in previous threads have picked apart the physical impossibilites of an actual, global RBE. I trust their assessments because their arguments were given with sound logic and good scientific explanations. Having satisfied myself that an RBE isn't physically possible (other than on a small commune scale), I am left with what happens when people try to make a phsyically impossible idea happen. Violence, generally. Couple that with the idea the we are "virtually blank slates" and I see the actual implementation of TZM as nothing but a ticket to both physical and psychological violence.



I did. Or rather, other posters did in previous incarnations of this thread many months ago. Their deconstruction was sound, logical, and scientifically-backed, which is what I look for in an explanation. TZM, on the other hand, just makes assertions that run counter to both logic and observed history.





If the answer was "yes" then I would look at what things were currently standing in the way of seeing the plan through to fruition and I would ponder what could be done to remove those obstacles.

Not all opinions are about whether a certain fact is true or not. Many opinions are about whther a certain goal or course of action is a desirable choice. Since not everybody values the same things, what constitutes a good outcome for one person often constitutes a bad outcome for another person. TZM does not seem to recognize this. They seem to insist that everybody underneath really all wants the same thing and therefore all that's needed is to prove factually the one way that will achieve that goal. I disagree that this psychological homogeneity exists. Part of why people have differeing opinions is not just because they have access to different subsets of data (a correctable thing) but also because they have different goals and values. But that's just my opinion. And I'm entitled to it.

I worry, perhaps along with MDD13, what exactly it means to not be allowed a (factually) wrong opinion? Putting aside the opinions that arise from non-shared values, what about the opinion differences that happen when two people disagree and one is wrong and the other is (factually) right? There's your example about the two guys arguing about paint color. They both have different perceptual vision so they see and thus label the color differently. One brings in a spectrometer, measures the exact wavelength that let's him name the color and the matter should be settled.

In one sense it is. One guy can say in all confidence that the color is blue (or whatever) because the spectrometer proved it. The other guy can then either say, "yes, it's blue" or he can stand his ground and keep insisting it's red, no matter what the spectrometer says. What happens to guys like him in TZM? They have an opinion. It's been proven wrong. So now what? In reality, it's perfectly fine for them to keep insisting on their opinion despite evidence it's wrong. Is it ok in TZM?

The guy is wrong and he refuses to change his mind. Do people just ignore him? Keep trying to convince him? Or do something...else...to make him change his mind. It's the ...else...that I and possibly MDD13 find worrisome. Because people who are proven wrong often don't change their mind (or PPR threads would be a lot shorter) and if TZM thinks this can be altered somehow, that is a dangerous notion. Dangerous because of the mind control it implies for those who won't just accept they have been proven wrong.

That still doesn't explain that you have referred to an RBE as BOTH when in fact they are diametrically opposed.



For one thing that doesn't make an RBE dystopian, since it makes NO reference to societal operation, and for another thing, its completely irrelevant. Human beings are CURRENTLY this way. Does that mean our current system is dystopian?



How much of you is you, and how much of you is the culmination of your life experiences? Think about that for awhile.



I can see that you are completely either ignoring or missing the implications in the use of NEARLY clean slates. That implies certain predispositions and genetic components. If you research "Epigenetics" you will see a completely new side of this.



Supporting information please?



This isn't the case of the "TZM paradigm" for 2 reasons.

1. This is true, no matter what economic system we live in. You seem to think that a change in economic system will change our fundamental biology.

2. TZM will only exist until we have moved into an RBE.



You obviously haven't considered the conditions human beings have existed in since the dawn of man. SCARCITY. If you wish to learn more about this, then look into the work of Dr. Gabor Mate and Prof. Robert Sapolsky. Both have featured in interviews in Zeitgeist: Moving forward, dispelling the myth of "human nature". Also, an entire semester of Stanford University lectures on Behavioural Biologyv by Sapolsky is on youtube. Very interesting stuff.



Again, irrelevant to the proposal of an RBE.



Again, look into the work of Mate and Sapolsky.



Again, supporting information please?

I don't want to live in a world where people think that basic neurology can be changed by enviroment. [/quote]

For one thing as I said, no-one is forcing you to, and for another thing you are completely overlooking Epigenetics as I said earlier.



Again, that is completely irrelevant. Neurology has ALWAYS been altered by environment. I will repeat that again for posterity. Neurology has ALWAYS been altered by environment. If that is your qualifier, then we have ALWAYS lived in a dystopia. Instead of rejecting the facts, how about you look for yourself as to the ways in which we are affected by our environment, and vice versa through the process of symbiosis. Also, have you not considered how conditions such as ADD, ADHD and other autistic spectrum disorders are actually CAUSED by the environment/methods? Maybe it would serve your statements to look at the other side of the coin.



You have clearly misunderstood my context. I'm referring to the situation of an RBE being established and if certain people disagree and don't want to live in an RBE. In which case, as I have already said, you are completely free to go off and build your own monetary system.

Also you have overlooked my statement concerning the over-use of resources. We exist ion a FINITE planet with FINITE resources, and yet the monetary paradigm NEEDS infinite growth and infinite consumption. THAT is why the days of the monetary system are numbered. You can rearrange chairs on the titanic all you like but the ship is sinking.



Why should they HAVE to collapse? Is this disparity acceptable or even condonable to you? The fact that the electronic board in New York that displays the US national debt has actually RUN OUT OF DIGITS to display the debt is something that concerns me. And something that is completely needless. When you familiarise yourself with the process of fractional reserve banking, which every bank in the world utilises, you will see how inherantly flawed and inflationary the entire monetary-market system is. And how it is leading to our collapse.



It is true that TZM wishes to alter the social and economic paradigm but only as a means of making it actually sustainable and not inflationary to the point of unsustainability. The monetary system is a cancer. It keeps growing and growing, consuming and consuming, in the process voiding its ultimate ability to sustain itself. We need to remove this cancer before it kills the host; The human family. That is the goal. To alter the dominant economic paradigm to one that is actually sustainable, however as I have said twice now, you are completely free to go off and build your own monetary system.



A collapse is inevitable with how a monetary system functions. Just do the math and look at the trends. Coz right now we are facing something that we have never faced before. The expiration of a resource that was CRUCIAL to our methods and hense survival; OIL.



Yet again, supporting information please?



Forgive me if I don't allow you to hold me to something that you proport on the mere basis of something that "seems to be". You're projecting. And no, this will not happen on its own. That is ridiculous. If you knew anything about monetary economics, and the proposals for an RBE, you will know that:

1. The current monetary paradigm is not actuially geared up for true, lasting, holistic and positive change towards a state of sustainability and abundance.

2. It is WIDELY stated in our materials that this change will not happen of its own accord. It requires a realisation on the part of a big enough percentage of the population to bring it to fruition. As Jacque Fresco says: "If we do nothing, I guarantee you that nothing will happen."

3. The shift in value systems alone is NOT the only element needed to change the orientations in economic systems. It takes the will to work towards a sustainable and humane future for ALL humankind.



You have either not read, payed attention to or ignored the fact that TZM operates with full embracing and advocating of the non-violence principle. We in no way advocate, promote, encourage, condone or encourage the use of force, coersion or violence to acheive ANY of our goals. It is becoming clearly apparent to me that you have hardly read ANY of the tenets of TZM and hense are projecting a lot of misinformed statements due to your lack of knowledge.



Again, you need to look at the work of Mate and Sapolsky. Besides, it is not the new sustainable paradigm that TZM proposes which is gonna necessarily change people's values. It's the other way around actually. It is the shift in value systems which is gonna cause an RBE to come to fruition. And this shift will be in part a coping mechanism that people will employ to actually cope with a post-collapse society. It is the collapse of all that we have known for hundreds of years that will unfortunately be the slap in the face of humanity that is hard enough to snap people out of the hydrocarbon economy mentality.



You obviously have still misunderstood my context, and also you don't understand what makes up the values of an RBE. And I can assure you right now, that since we would be living sustainably and providing for ourselves, the idea of stealing from others (The monetary system's way of propagating) is simply not necessary and in fact needless. You are judging an RBE's values based on how a monetary system works. And I'm sorry to tell you that an RBE is not an economic paradigm that requires to steal and rape the planet to survive. In fact, how it will play out is that the monetary system that may co-exist with an RBE will be the one that will feel the need to encroach on an RBE coz the monetary system will have already burnt through all of it's resources.



That still doesn't explain how you referred to an RBE as BOTH.



We at TZM are not hollywood fiction writers, so we have no vested interest in selling the idea that the future is gonna be oppressive but with the indoctrination that it's the greatest place in the universe. EVERY hollywood film about the future is dystopian. And why is that? To stop people hoping for a decent, humane and sustainable future perhaps? To prepare people for the fact that their dreams whatever they may be are nothing but dreams? Think about it.



Well we at TZM don't fall under the heading of the creation of a dystopian vision which we disguise as utopian, so your entire argument here falls on its face. Sorry.

[guote] For example, North Korea is a dystopia for its' citizens (according to those who have escaped) and to outside observers who wouldn't want to live that way (which is apparently everybody else in the world, since nobody tries to emigrate there). But to Kim Jong Il, it's a utopia, one he carefully crafted to fit exactly what he thinks a perfect society should be. I'm sure there are high-ups in his government who also agree, or he'd have been shot by now. [/quote]

North Korea is a monetary system. Nuff said.



Taking into consideration your statements here you don't even have an accurate fundamental understanding of the proposals, so it's obvious they're not gonna be good enough for you.



No, you have delegated your own individual decision arriving processes to other people who have a vested emotional interest in debating me and insulting me. There's a difference. Either way, you still have allowed other people to do your thinking for you to compensate for your own personal lack of understanding of what you are trying to debunk.

And besides, who are you to say that they have actually succeeded in debunking anything? Coz there was ultimately two of them, trolling me? That is HARDLY proof positive of anything. If they have provided such "scientific" and "logical" arguments that completely debunks the feasability of an RBE, then by all means you would be able to post it here. Or are you merely trying to convince yourself that I have been beaten and you're making blanket statements to imply that I have already been disproved so I might as well quit now?

What exactly are these "scientific" and "logical" explanations? Can you name them? Or would thinking for yourself be too difficult as opposed to regurgitating second hand strawmen?



Can you ACTUALLY provide me with ANY evidence to prove that the exact proposal of an RBE that TZM promoites has EVER been tried before? This will be interesting.



YET AGAIN, supporting evidence please? And keep in mind that you have to prove that TZM's EXACT proposals have been tried before.





Thankyou for admitting that you prefer to let other people do your thinking for you. Bravo.



Considering that they, as I stated earlier, had an emotionally vested interest to troll me, I would hardly rate the accuracy of their claims. And considering that you are preferring this biased information as opposed to using your own brain when armed with actual unbiased information sprouted from a full and untainted understanding of the proposals themselves, I wouldn't rate your analysis either.



It would serve you better to look at the afirmatives in life.

Hense the subjectivity and hense unreliability of opinions.



You clearly don't possess a full and unbiases understanding of TZM's tenets and our position on the consideration as scientific methodology trumping opinion. Please read u[p more on this because it's becoming tiring telling you that you are misinformaed about TZM.



I would actually agree with you here. Still doesn't prove that opinions are deserving of the class of entitlement.



As I have stated, I can understand the emotionally vested interest of wanting to be taken seriously and want to be right when all you have is an opinion.



Nothing will "happen" to him. And I assume you're referring to an RBE, not TZM. He just has to get over the fact that whatever he perceives is the colour of the wall, empirical evidence has proven him wrong. This is what we mean about putting opinions aside. What happens to their opinion is the same regardless of the situation. In the case of societal operation or structural engineering you surely can appeciate that the opinion of a carpet fitter is irrelevant and useless when designing and constructing a bridge. People have to just get over themselves and accept their opinions as transitory.



Like I said, violence, force or coersion is not our way of doing things. People just have tio get over themselves. For one thing if I try to impose my misinformed and innacurate opinion into something that you are doing that you have expertise in that is greater than mine I have to get over the fact that I am wrong. Besides, getting over our individual hangups and allowing other people to develop their more optimal ideas and designs make all our lives easier. It's what we mean by outgrowing ego. Currently that kind of situation would cause emotional harm to the person who has been proven wrong and the other person has the better idea. But in the value system we advopcate, people will think to themselves:

"Hell, he has the better idea, that makes things a hell of a lot easier for me, I should put my mind to something else."



There is no "else". You get over yourself and you move on. Simple as that. I can understand how you perceive this as dangerous, coz it is contrary to your current value system of valuing opinions up there either along side, or above empirical data.

There is no mind control. There is simply the adherence to the empirical constraints of nature. If you are the CEO of BP it DOES NOT MATTER what opinion you have about the amount of oil your company can burn, or how much there is to burn, once it runs out, that's it. Your opinion that you can keep burning oil and keep making profits is gonna fall flat on it's face when nature smacks you round the head (figuratively speaking) and reminds you that there IS NO MORE OIL.

It appears that you may take some time to come around to the fact that to survive on this planet we have to put opinion aside and just align with nature.

Yes. Adam here is batshit crazy, and not really worth engaging. Any disagreement, even if phrased more politely than I have the patience for, will be rejected as flaming and assumed to derive either from ignorance or malice. When I actually bothered to debate Adam a long time ago it came to the point where he would have had to deny the validity of mathematics and logic to continue in his stance. I recommend saving your time by ignoring him.