Zeitgeist Movement Discussion

Zeitgeist Addendum was very interesting but the Venus Project does seem impossible. I'm not saying the "founder" is insincere, but a lot of people would prefer to have money over that system. You can have a resource based society that focuses on individuals instead of cost without getting rid of money, we just have to re-think and redefine the way we use currency. I don't think such a society could even possibly occur within the next 500 years without force, so I guess it may be impossible to consider for a long time in our history, until perhaps even more than the majority would be for it and little force would be needed.

As for what the film states about politics to say that politicians are not needed in a society is a very vague statement, and the film never attempts to give good enough explanations of how a world would work without politics. What, do we just do it by every person's vote counts and the majority wins when we have to decide an issue? That's just allowing majority rule, the majority is not always right. Every single person on the planet can not represent themselves or their ideals when a society has to make a decision that could impact our lives or simply affect our system. That's why we need some form of representative to speak for us. And when the majority is wrong we need people in power who are able to combat the majorities influence. The Venus Project people seem to go to drastic measures that aren't necessary, we don't need to throw away our entire system to have a more progressive, individual based society, we just have to do a lot of tweaking on many of our existing concepts.



[edit on 19-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

Originally posted by badmedia
Who decides who gets what resources? Who decides who should be able to pollute and who isn't? Who decides what educational classes should be taught? etc.

The resources would be allocated by the computers based upon what the people have put priorities on. Pollution will not be left out of the manufacturing algorithm, so pollution as it is known now will not exist. Educational classes will not exist in the way it is done now. The individual will decide what they want to learn and the system will provide that information.

First you say those who have the need or desire for something decides and gets what they need. But then you go with the "catch". The limit being "the resources necessary". So how does one decide the need or desire and then also the resources? You aren't giving a straight answer. It's those who want get, but then it's limited, and then you say there is nobody to decide who gets what. So where does the limit come from?

Individuals decide the need or desire. The resources are limited by nature. Show me a system which is not limited by nature, by what exists in nature.

The US constitution is not setup for the elites, quite the opposite. It is setup decentralized. Try reading the 9th and 10th amendments. If you have researched these things so much, then you should at least know the proper way the constitution of the US is setup.

I'm not going to argue the Constitution with you. The structure is stated quite clearly in the Constitution, and it is indeed a power structure.

I'm a programmer, and I design systems for a living. When I design systems I have to not only look at the program when everything works properly and users enter and do things properly, but I also have to take into account when users don't use the system properly. Failure to do so results in bugs, hacks and general corruption within the system. You fail to look at the system you propose in any other light than every user doing exactly as told/envisioned. And sorry, but that is just asking for corruption and is to be in lala land. You can call it projecting, pigeon holing or whatever you want. But the simple fact is you have to call them those things because you haven't the foggiest idea how to handle such things.

You seem to think that all aspects of what we are proposing is stated in a few posts to a Forum. Do you really think we are that stupid? If so, why are you arguing about something with people who you consider stupid? Why bother?

Elites are created by the power structure under them. Period. Without the power structure under them, the "elites" are just another average joe. Therefore I do not care to identify "elites" or go on witch hunts about who is an "elite", but rather look for logical systems which simply get rid of the function as a whole.

And that is what we are proposing. But you don't think we are smart enough to come up with anything like that. Interesting.

I'm a programmer, and I would never let a computer manage my life. EVER. Nor do I have any desire to travel "mass transit". You apparently have a misguided idea about computers, programs and what is possible. Do you think a computer can actually understand something and decide things? It's just following patterns over and over. It has no "reason", no "understanding".

So you have never flown in an airplane or rode in a train or ridden in a car at 55mph, one of the most dangerous actions humans do, which has a computer controlling the engine? Your bank doesn't use a computer to calculate your account either, right? AND you think we are putting the power to decide every aspect of everyone's everyday life under the control of computers. Once again, you consider us stupid.

I had a decade and a half programming computers, btw, long ago. I've designed computer systems now used in Universities.

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
Zeitgeist Addendum was very interesting but the Venus Project does seem impossible. I'm not saying the "founder" is insincere, but a lot of people would prefer to have money over that system. You can have a resource based society that focuses on individuals instead of cost without getting rid of money, we just have to re-think and redefine the way we use currency.

What will happen is not defined yet. This is a new idea, something far different than anything in the past. It is not specifically political or economic, it actually refers to a more efficient use of resources and the ending of technological 'blind' spots like pollution and environmental damage, not to mention the way people are devalued en mass by industry, leaving a billion intelligent people starving and uneducated in the world. Surely you don't think the existing economic system is efficient?

I don't think such a society could even possibly occur within the next 500 years without force, so I guess it may be impossible to consider for a long time in our history, until perhaps even more than the majority would be for it and little force would be needed.

With the growing realization of what Humanity is doing to itself and the environment, I think you might be surprised how quickly the changes will come.

As for what the film states about politics to say that politicians are not needed in a society is a very vague statement, and the film never attempts to give good enough explanations of how a world would work without politics.

Try Zeitgeist Addendum instead, but realize that it cannot be anything but the barest description of what is being proposed. We're talking about the redesign of a world with 6 billion people and problems that may destroy us all. It is not a simple idea, believe me.

What, do we just do it by every person's vote counts and the majority wins when we have to decide an issue? That's just allowing majority rule, the majority is not always right. Every single person on the planet can not represent themselves or their ideals when a society has to make a decision that could impact our lives or simply affect our system. That's why we need some form of representative to speak for us. And when the majority is wrong we need people in power who are able to combat the majorities influence. The Venus Project people seem to go to drastic measures that aren't necessary, we don't need to throw away our entire system to have a more progressive, individual based society, we just have to do a lot of tweaking on many of our existing concepts.

Do I need to list out the insanity of what is, and has been, the results of the current systems? Is a billion people dying of starvation and preventable disease, and the rest of the world stressed out to the max constantly say enough? Not to mention the staggering environmental damage still occurring.

Don't you think it's interesting that people will value a tiny group of people and devalue the rest of people as a whole? Do you really think a few people, with what they know or can find out, will have a better grasp upon the full range of solution possibilities than everyone thinking and learning about a problem together?

The exact way that people all together will figure things out is not yet figured out itself. Nothing springs full grown from nothing to something. It is not likely any of the existing ways of deciding something will be adopted when the number of people working on the problem is in the millions. We are not ignorant peasants anymore. We don't have to accept the rule and attitudes of royalty and elites anymore. Hasn't the planet and the people suffered enough under the dysfunctional results of past methods of decision making?

We can do better now than ever has been even thought of before. Making the same mistakes over and over again is the definition of stupidity.

[edit on 20-5-2009 by Worldmind]

Originally posted by LoKito
how can you join the movement?

Sorry about the delay in answering you.
www.thezeitgeistmovement.com... email me at *snip* if you have any problems. I'll try to help, although I am not the site supervisor.

Register there, then a pull down menu has the forum link.

One problem I see is the EGO factor as I am a bit insecure the someone could become corrupted and take hold of a particular infrastructure of a RBE society.

That's understandable. But considering we live in a structure that has corruption built in and most infrastructures are 'ruled' by people with their own agendas, I think we will be able to prevent that more easily than the current system.

When I say infrastructure I refer for example the net. Assuming food, water, technology, medical aid and other materials need are met with abundance, Education is still far behind in its fight against ignorance. IMO

The existing methods of education are to basically produce factory and service workers, with the smarter students trained to take their place in cubicals in corporate offices or as cannon fodder for the military. I am quite sure we can do better than that.

One flame is still lit and that is the internets !

For now, anyway. It's our hope it will continue.

and I am afraid that in a RBE this infrastructure could be open for hacking by a third party with ulterior motives, besides the dissemination of information across the human race to increase our awareness of the depth of human thought.

I have no doubt we will have those kinds of problems. We are not proposing a utopia, we are quite sure humans will continue to be human. But the existing systems are so dysfunctional, especially on the world scale, that such efforts by a few people will still be an improvement over what now exists. If we do not clean up our act as a species, we are not likely to survive our own dysfunction. We are already creating one of the fastest Mass Extinction Events in the world's entire history, and we could be it's victim just as easily as the rest of the species. What people choose is vitally important now, imho.

[edit on 20-5-2009 by Worldmind]


Mod Edit: removed personal email.

iii) You will not post, use the chat feature or use the private message system to solicit members of The Above Network, LLC on behalf of another message board, online community or competitor. You will not attempt to use your membership to encourage or lure other members in any way to other websites or discussion boards in competition with The Above Network, LLC.

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 21-5-2009 by GAOTU789]

Originally posted by symmetricAvenger
one little snag in the movie...

who is going to control the order of the day?

its the same thing we have now but alot more pretty with flowers bells and whistles...

dont be fooled..

And you know that HOW?

Who do you think should control the order of your day?

And I suggest you watched Zeitgeist Addendum instead of Zeitgeist the movie. It doesn't have as much irrelevant stuff in it. You can find it on
www.thezeitgeistmovement.com...

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


There is absolutely no need for money in this world. Its very design in soley for the purpose of creating pockets of slavery, and extreme poverty and pockets of wealth. This paper is not energy. Shared work and cooperation is.

The Venus Project is, in its overall concept, the correct approach. However, there needs to be a system of government and it needs to be a grass roots level of democracy. The best system in the world is party list proproportional democracy, which increases both the number of women running and elected, but the numbers of parties being created and gaining seats. This is the opposite of winner take all, which creates a dictator. In the party list system power is shared, and cooperation is mandatory. This would blend very nicely with the Venus Project.

For example, if a society like this already existed, eco villages with recycled homes and gardens would be everywhere, no one would be without. It would not be dependent on status, sex, or current employment. No one who was healthy would actually be unemployed as ongoing projects would exist in every community and region, requiring skills, some who chose specific training and people would volunteer and share a much lighter workload spread out.

The Venus Project cannot be operated lone wolf style, something akin to it needs a good form of governing. But there would be no reward for sharks to take over, no usary. And it would run on volunteerism, with education encouraging all to become useful at developing their skills or volunteering.

I don't vote anymore. I don't support any of the candidates. This is the only system I concur with. However I don't support an elite, rule from the top, or anarchy version of it.

In order for this to work, the rules would have to be simple, and anyone who broke these would be instantly removed from any position of service they were volunteering in, for example any leadership position. Leaders would have to be rotated, and may only serve once in their lives. No ownership of anything. No patents of anything. No intellectual property, all knowledge and all things belong to everyone, private homes and dwellings and personal belongings would still exist to serve individuals and family. We would still have privacy. No forced labor, all efforts would be volunteerism. Education would be enhanced with encouragement for skills to develop, retraining at later dates when wished for, and volunteerism. Also, people would be encouraged to attend locally and participate in regional, etc. planning. Education, scientific and medical careers would be very encouraged.

Guilds that provided the necessities and training in all manner of crafts and art would be very encouraged. Caretaking this planet and ethical treatment of all life on it would be very encouraged. In fact after farming, education and health care, these would probably be the most important type jobs equal to science.

People would be free but educated and continually receiving gifts from the community and encouraged to participate and share their skills and talents.

The only thing we really would have to also have in terms of volunteers, that should also only serve for a short while and then be replaced, are policing for violent criminals. And without massive prison systems we would need to have a way to reabilitate individuals. I'd look at Norway's system.

Edit to add: political or leadership positions could even be, rather than electoral, jury duty type thing, and there would be no need to reduce the amount of individuals. There could be many sharing 4 hour shifts. To encourage manyt types of people VOLUNTEERING for the selections. This would be to manage big emergencies.

Can you imagine not worrying about income, not worrying about anything other than being educated fully and being encouraged to discover and use all of your skills and talents. Not being forced into any form of labor. Child minding skills and education would certainly take on a whole new level of respect as far as skills go.

A look at this in a futuristic way by a wonderful writer, www.abovetopsecret.com...
The Abundance Paradigm: By Amaterasu; Now Online!!!


[edit on 20-5-2009 by mystiq]

reply to post by Worldmind

Surely you don't think the existing economic system is efficient?

That doesn’t mean you just jump on the bandwagon of an alternative system that isn’t thought out when thinking of how humanity will respond to it.

With the growing realization of what Humanity is doing to itself and the environment, I think you might be surprised how quickly the changes will come.

There’s a difference between having regard for the earth and each other and wanting a completely resourced based society. I’m sure if the entire world was polled this would get a low rating. It’s very close to communism, with an emphasis on resources we would all have equal shares in.

Zeitgeist Addendum instead

This is the film that I speak of; it offers no tangible political solutions for a new society. It only states that politics don’t work.

Do I need to list out the insanity of what is, and has been, the results of the current systems?

While you’re at it why don’t you point out the successes? We do not live in a black and white world my friend, this system has actually been good to us too, and anyone who claims differently is not seeing this argument through objective eyes, therefore how are we to trust their judgment? How are they to know what is best in a new system if they do not realize success in the old?

Don't you think it's interesting that people will value a tiny group of people and devalue the rest of people as a whole?

I don’t find it interesting, I find it incredibly sad, and if you’re naïve enough to think that this can’t happen in a resource based society, you are wrong.

The exact way that people all together will figure things out is not yet figured out itself.

The exact reason why this is no where close to being considered a good idea, logically this shift in societal structure would be the biggest deal in human history. If it’s “creators” can not figure out how to address simple basics then it is definitely not going to happen any time soon.



[edit on 20-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

reply to post by mystiq

Its very design in soley for the purpose of creating pockets of slavery,

To an extent, but money was also designed to give things value. Money is not the problem, it is the way people abuse the concept and the things of value that money represents.

For example, if a society like this already existed, eco villages with recycled homes and gardens would be everywhere, no one would be without. It would not be dependent on status, sex, or current employment. No one who was healthy would actually be unemployed as ongoing projects would exist in every community and region, requiring skills, some who chose specific training and people would volunteer and share a much lighter workload spread out.

This example is just your opinion of how this would successfully work. No such thing has ever been tried on a global scale, we can’t say for sure if it would be a complete mess or success. I’m merely saying that you have to consider that human nature has spilled over into every societal circumstance, and human nature is not always good. The Venus Project tries to claim that human nature doesn’t exist, only behavior, while ignoring inherent things that have existed within several different societies since the dawn of time.


You may not support someone in the top, but someone has to be in charge. Someone has to make tough decisions. The world will always be filled with people and situations that need taking care of. Someone is going to end up with more power and influence than others; someone has to decide what to do when a world filled with billions of people can not come to one agreement or compromise.

[edit on 20-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

Originally posted by Worldmind
The resources would be allocated by the computers based upon what the people have put priorities on. Pollution will not be left out of the manufacturing algorithm, so pollution as it is known now will not exist. Educational classes will not exist in the way it is done now. The individual will decide what they want to learn and the system will provide that information.

Who are the people who decide what the priorities are?

Exactly how do you plan on putting pollution into a manufacturing algorithm? Don't really need an algorithm to get 0. So it is still in favor of allowing pollution legally, as long as it is deemed a "priority"?

How is that a different education system? I took the classes I wanted to take in school. The only ones I had to take were basic math, english etc. Are you saying those classes won't be taken by the majority?

Individuals decide the need or desire. The resources are limited by nature. Show me a system which is not limited by nature, by what exists in nature.

Exactly, until you get beyond that fact, all things will have an inherit value and will be traded among people as such. Thus a cashless system is impossible and a scam. It's no different than communism.

I'm not going to argue the Constitution with you. The structure is stated quite clearly in the Constitution, and it is indeed a power structure.

The constitution doesn't tell congress what it can't do, it tells them what they can not do. If it is not specifically listed, then it is unconstitutional. That is called the 10th amendment. Anything that is not listed is automatically passed down to the states and on to the individual's own choice.

You seem to think that all aspects of what we are proposing is stated in a few posts to a Forum. Do you really think we are that stupid? If so, why are you arguing about something with people who you consider stupid? Why bother?

Actually this is a topic that is and has been discussed quite often. Why are you attacking the person rather than what that person is saying?

And that is what we are proposing. But you don't think we are smart enough to come up with anything like that. Interesting.

No, you are talking about ways to get people to give into a group mentality. Communism with "fixes", but they aren't really fixes at all. You seem to think that "for the people" means only the majority of people. The "people" don't get to decide ANYTHING. The "majority" does, and it's only a matter of manipulating the majority into doing whatever they think is priority and that has proven to be easy.

It's like telling me I have a choice in who is president of the US. No I don't. My vote doesn't matter, all that matter is the majority. I'm not fool enough to fall for these things.

So you have never flown in an airplane or rode in a train or ridden in a car at 55mph, one of the most dangerous actions humans do, which has a computer controlling the engine? Your bank doesn't use a computer to calculate your account either, right? AND you think we are putting the power to decide every aspect of everyone's everyday life under the control of computers. Once again, you consider us stupid.

Hardly the point, I'm not giving up such control to anyone or anything. Systems can be hacked and so forth.

There is really nothing you can say that is going to make me change my mind. I'll never get chipped for starters, sorry I am not cattle. And I'm not going to let anyone else manage my life and whatever for me. Nobody comes out selling their ideas as bad ideas, it's always presented in the best light possible. Bet the burger you get at that fast food joint doesn't look near as good as it did in that commercial.

The sad fact of the matter is that humans will find a way to gain power and control over other humans. And so I'm just not going to support anything which gives power over others.

I can not believe that this post is still alive, its a scam. They will tell you with questions your answers without any real merrit. Sounds to good to be true, well it is you know. I bet they think that they will find happiness in such a system, as they can not be happy in the one they have, and so, being in this way they will screem and yell and tell fasle truths to get you too to join the system that is not even available to test out, here is their shot, they tell you all that is wrong with the system YOU are in and yet tell you how theirs is so much nicer, even though they have no system to prove to you that it is all right. So, its a scam, no product, then its all in their heads. Who to say that you MUST do this to BE this way yet they themselfs can not Do what they have to to make their system that they are in better.

There was a man who wanted to own a house in a nice neighborhood to raise his children in. Let’s call him Rob. Rob looked around and discovered the only houses he could afford were in neighborhoods he was not happy about raising his kids in.

But Rob decided he should buy a house when he could afford to fix it up, so he bought a house in a rather bad neighborhood because the house was a sound house, worth fixing up.

When Rob moved in, he was told by people in the neighborhood that it was a very bad place to buy a house, that everyone in the neighborhood were fools and lazy drug addicts and worthless old people.

Rob looked around at the old shabby houses, paint peeling, yards unkempt and filled with trash, old people shuffling around with hopeless looks on their faces, graffiti scrawled on walls, broken glass, etc, and decided to do something about it.

So Rob went to his nearest neighbor, an old man who could barely sit up on his porch from illness, and asked him if it was OK to paint his house and clean up his yard. The old man growled he didn’t care, as long as he didn’t have to pay for it, so Rob bought paint and started painting the old man’s house, scraping off peeling paint, doing minor repairs to the siding, etc.

People in the neighborhood stopped and watched the young man working energetically to fix his neighbor's house up and talked among themselves.

“He’s just looking for some way to get in and steal stuff, I’ll bet.” One guy said.

“No, he’s conning the guy somehow.” Another said.

“It’s some kind of scam.” A woman agreed, “Some kind of rip off.”

“You’re a fool to be fixing that guy’s house.” Someone told Rob, “Whatever he said he would pay you, he’s too poor to come up with the money.” Rob just shrugged.

And Rob painted the house, cleaned up and cut the lawn, painted the old man’s fence, etc, then went on to his nearest neighbor on the other side of his house and got the landlord there to happily allow him to paint that house and fix it up, all on Rob’s dime.

That summer, Rob would come home from his day job and go to work on his neighbor's houses and yards, cleaning up the street as he went, picking up trash, trimming bushes, until Autumn came and Rob finished the last house on that block.

He turned back and looked down his street, houses all fixed up and freshly painted, yards looking good, now kept up by the people living in the houses, no more broken glass and trash everywhere, and he smiled and went home.

Because of Rob, the landlords started keeping this ‘lost’ neighborhood in good condition, the druggies moved out, crime faded considerably, there was less fighting among the tenants who rented the houses, and Rob had a neighborhood worth raising children in.

The moral of the story?
That no matter what, there are always nay-sayers, ignorant skeptics of anything good, who bad talk every good thing that anyone does or talks about, who do not understand the why or wherefores of those who try to make a better world since in their shriveled hearts they cannot possibly understand the motivation for it.

But, with effort, things do change for the better, if even one person takes it onto themselves to better the world.

How much more could be done if millions of people took on that same task?

reply to post by Worldmind

That no matter what, there are always nay-sayers, ignorant skeptics of anything good, who bad talk every good thing that anyone does or talks about, who do not understand the why or wherefores of those who try to make a better world since in their shriveled hearts they cannot possibly understand the motivation for it.

Alright I'm done with this thread. Anyone who disagrees with you is a nay-sayer or ignorant skeptic who has a shriveled heart? Both badmedia and I raised good points.

I don't foresee you making very many friends here, at ATS, with that attitude. Or convincing anyone to even consider your viewpoint.

-CHEERS

reply to post by Worldmind


You take an example of someone doing something good, and then use that example as a way of trying to FORCE everyone else into doing that. If you want to take on the actions of Rob, then great. More power to you, if I can spare a dime I'll even help you with it.

But what you are talking about is a system. A system which forces people to do these things. And that isn't cool. It's not even the same thing.

This world doesn't need more people trying to tell others what to do, if you want to see change then be the change. Don't tell me about how great things will be if you force people into a system, if it works then go do it. Go out there and paint your neighbors house and so forth. And if it catches on, then great.

What you talk about is the entire game. You look at politics and you see people who talk about systems, plans and programs thats going to make things better. And they present it just like you do. Education will be better they say, just give us control. And the people foolishly give away control over the issue. And then once control is lost, those with the ability to control do whatever they want. I'm not fool enough to fall for it.

If what you say is such a great system then it wouldn't need to be something that is forced on people. They would do it voluntarily. If you can convince 10 people to paint their neighbors house, good stuff. If you want to force 10 people to paint their neighbors house, then you need to get over yourself. It's pretty sad when control over 1 life isn't enough for people.

Originally posted by badmedia

You take an example of someone doing something good, and then use that example as a way of trying to FORCE everyone else into doing that. If you want to take on the actions of Rob, then great. More power to you, if I can spare a dime I'll even help you with it. But what you are talking about is a system. A system which forces people to do these things. And that isn't cool. It's not even the same thing.

Both you and rapinbatsisaltherage seem to think we are trying to FORCE people in some way. Where do you get that idea? There is no intention to force anyone to do anything. To work, what we want to do has to be a volunteer effort by everyone concerned.

In fact, the system we are proposing is an attempt to get away from intimidation, coercion, and such 'Forcing'. We consider it one of the big lessons of history, that trying to force people to be, do, or believe in some ideology or system produces exactly the opposite result. What we are talking about is an emergent idea, a practical proposal that we don't claim is finalized or detailed, mainly because for a workable system to be successful, millions of people will have to work on crafting the idea even before the system can begin to be tried.

We have just started conceptualizing the first DNA of a system of freedom never even conceived of before. To what we have figured out already, all the existing systems, capitalism, communism, socialism, fascism, etc, are basically the same, full of coercion and force, systems which define almost every moment, concern, and behavior of everyone trapped in them. It defines the terms they think in.

We recognize as our social DNA idea grows and develops, it will change in vast ways, but if we keep as the most basic original concepts the ending of coercion and force in human affairs, and the proven benefits of non-polluting technology, we will be successful in the long run. We are not idealists. We are NOT trying to create a utopia of drones following some 'ism'. We want only to create a framework of technology and human behaviors that will allow Humanity to survive and prosper in a future which has long been in doubt.

This world doesn't need more people trying to tell others what to do, if you want to see change then be the change. Don't tell me about how great things will be if you force people into a system, if it works then go do it. Go out there and paint your neighbors house and so forth. And if it catches on, then great.

I have done that. I've done that with thousands of other people working together to do that. We did great good in the world. But because human behavior is not limited to only individual or small group scales but also larger scales, the Royalist DNA concepts of the larger existing social systems result in coercion and force to limit or destroy individual or small group efforts, including ours. The larger scales, right now, even in the USA, originated in Royalism, the most ancient of control systems, elite control of those larger scales which have institutional controls to prevent the individuals from even realizing how little control they actually have over their lives and futures.

This applies even to the Constitution of the US, which is an attempt of the people hundreds of years ago to modify the conceptual DNA of their society. But while it was a wonderful attempt, the use of force and coercion in setting that up, and the pragmatic requirement to fit the Royalist Conceptual DNA of the world at that time (Like slavery being legal) set up the failure of that system on larger scales, with all the Amendments being band aids that did not prevent coercion and force being used by the elites in that Royalist larger system.

It is a new time, with new information and technology available to us, and we can do better.

More in the next message:

What you talk about is the entire game. You look at politics and you see people who talk about systems, plans and programs thats going to make things better. And they present it just like you do. Education will be better they say, just give us control. And the people foolishly give away control over the issue. And then once control is lost, those with the ability to control do whatever they want. I'm not fool enough to fall for it.

Good. Neither do we. Instead we try to transcend the terms of that social algorithm and figure out what would work.

If what you say is such a great system then it wouldn't need to be something that is forced on people. They would do it voluntarily. If you can convince 10 people to paint their neighbors house, good stuff. If you want to force 10 people to paint their neighbors house, then you need to get over yourself. It's pretty sad when control over 1 life isn't enough for people.

I agree, and the Zeitgeist Movement is based upon exactly that kind of voluntary participation. And people are joining it as volunteers. By the hundreds every day right now. Eventually it will be thousands a day, until there are millions of people thinking in new terms, new methods, and working together voluntarily to create a new future. And that won't include coercion or force. We are, right now, just trying to get the idea out, and there is no force involved in that, is there?

While we don't claim we know it for sure, it feels to us like the ante is up to such a degree that all human survival itself is at stake... that it's 'all in' for humanity if it wants to survive on this planet. The only way, in my lifetime of study and experience, that can work is to change the paradigm of human thought, and to do that, we have to transcend the cynicism inherent in the old royalist forms of thought, the cynicism which limits the dialog to unworkable old ideas and methods.

reply to post by Worldmind


Of course it's voluntary now, you have no other choice or way to force it on anyone. But it's a system and systems are used for control. Once into the "system" then the voluntary deal is gone, one must be subjected to the system.

The entire thing rides on people following the system. The system is all about managing peoples lives for them. No thanks. It doesn't how much you promise it's going to be better or whatever. The fact of the matter is it is just yet another system where the people lose freedoms and choice.

Even if you get exactly everything you ask for, you have still lost the choice when you subject yourself to these things. Which you will quickly find out the moment you change your mind.

Such is how the world works, people give up control because of things sold as "good", and then things are manipulated from there. Because getting control over others was the entire point.

All governments and such are evil. But they are a necessary evil because we have evil in this world. Thus there are valid functions for government, and those valid functions are extremely limited and managing peoples lives is not a valid function.

Simply not interested in such scams. Nothing you say is new, same old stuff, new wrapper. If I had a nickle for everyone who said they had the system/plan/program to make things all better, I'd feed the world.

[edit on 21-5-2009 by badmedia]

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by Worldmind

 

That no matter what, there are always nay-sayers, ignorant skeptics of anything good, who bad talk every good thing that anyone does or talks about, who do not understand the why or wherefores of those who try to make a better world since in their shriveled hearts they cannot possibly understand the motivation for it.

Alright I'm done with this thread. Anyone who disagrees with you is a nay-sayer or ignorant skeptic who has a shriveled heart? Both badmedia and I raised good points.

I don't foresee you making very many friends here, at ATS, with that attitude. Or convincing anyone to even consider your viewpoint.

I'm sorry you take it personally. It was not just a response to your posting but many others across the forum. Not all, but many. To automatically assume people are trying to control others is a form of cynical knee-jerk reaction, and I was trying to make clear that we are not, nor would ever, try to control others, especially by coercion or force. We know that doesn't work to make a better world.

It was not meant as an insult to you or to characterize you in any way. It is a parable, not an attack on anyone.

-CHEERS

Originally posted by Worldmind
I'm sorry you take it personally. It was not just a response to your posting but many others across the forum. Not all, but many. To automatically assume people are trying to control others is a form of cynical knee-jerk reaction, and I was trying to make clear that we are not, nor would ever, try to control others, especially by coercion or force. We know that doesn't work to make a better world.

It was not meant as an insult to you or to characterize you in any way. It is a parable, not an attack on anyone.

-CHEERS

Show me a single system or form of government that has been presented as being bad. Show me a single system that was presented as - we are going to enslave you, and we will control and manage your life as we see fit. Go ahead, I'll wait.

The fact of the matter is this is exactly how all things will be presented. And thus, relying on your word that "we don't want to do that at all" just isn't worth anything. Doesn't do you any good to tell me how great things will be, I don't believe you.

Instead, one must look at the possibilities as if someone did actually want to do those things, and could they. And because this system requires people to allow an outside source to manage their lives then it is a system which allows exactly those things.

Originally posted by Worldmind

The moral of the story?
That no matter what, there are always nay-sayers, ignorant skeptics of anything good, who bad talk every good thing that anyone does or talks about, who do not understand the why or wherefores of those who try to make a better world since in their shriveled hearts they cannot possibly understand the motivation for it.

But, with effort, things do change for the better, if even one person takes it onto themselves to better the world.

How much more could be done if millions of people took on that same task?

Moral of the story ( The Venus Project ) is a scam. You answer and many who belong to this idea have used mostly stories, and questions to answer questions, yet have not provided a system for us to pick apart like you pick apart other systems. it just smells to bad to even for see anything like this happening here in the USA. I can see people who look at this type of system of deceit to better there lifes. Like the fellow in the story you have provided, people here in the USA have done that and will continue to do so, even at the expense of their own monies. This is what seperates us from some type of computer chip controlled sociaty. We the people, do what we can to help those who have not. Although we do not tolerate and will not tolerate people who try to sell us a bridge that is not even built yet. The bridge will never be built, it is treason first off. 2nd you would have to provide letters of building codes and using law to build your system, this of corse you say there is no laws, yet you use them to make a complete and total control sociaty with those laws. It is a scam, better your world the best way you can, and help those who need your help.


[edit on 5/22/2009 by zman]