SG only natural - Human - resource be engine for Growth ?
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
If all social systems are always in a state of evolution due to "change which is a constant in Life" - what do you think is the purpose for such changes to be made that result in evolution ?
Has the need for constant change and evolution to occur not been a result of society's need to progress and improve - in pursuit of betterment in Life ?
Is it not part of man's idealism for a perfect world, or somewhere closer to it ?
Has it not been your stated or implied position for such a perfect world to exist - where human consumption find an equilibrium with the preservation of nature's available resources ?
With the clear detailing of the oxymoron system that you had described, what is the next best alternative to resolve the status quo ?
Can anyone in Singapore know what the Singapore Government has in mind, when all decisions are made in the cloistered and rarefied environment of fhe CEC ?
The consumerist culture was already spoken as early as 1981 - by one of the most intellectual of Singapore's founding father - the late S. Rajaratnam, who was the longest serving Singapore Foreign Minister - when he spoke at a Havard Club Anniversary Dinner in Singapore.
You may wish to delve into his speech about - “Happy Pigs and Unhappy Men (*1)” - and determine for yourself the state of the Singapore Government today.
In his retirement in 1988, he spoke out against the materialistic culture in Singapore, when he spoke out at ‘...the decline of intellectualism and clear thinking, and was troubled by the phenomenon – which he attributed the decline with its underlying dynamic being a global one and formed part of the sweeping tide of history. It is the undesired consequences of steady economic growth, technological progress, and the burgeoning raw consumer culture which drives societies today and has help spawn its attendant shallow materialism’. (*2)
Did Karl Marx and-or Lenin attempt to do away with the monetary system, or were their underlying philosophy being a struggle for a Class-less and Equitable Society ?
Without a monetary system, can any society develop to a higher level based purely on a system of bartering goods and services ?
Regretably, I am amazed at the 'wishy-washy' position that you have adopted in this wasteful and supposedly intellectual exercise.
Mankind has evolved over centuries to arrive at the most efficient form of transaction of economic exchanges between societies, and it is with disbelief to read your claim that "regulating the distribution [of resources] through money would be ridiculous, retarded (impeding social progress) and irrelevant to human survival".
Have you ignored that all economic activity - and the resources that you recognised to be finite - will need to be determined in one form or another in terms of priorities ?
Without the element of "PROFITABILITY" and "MONETARY VALUATION" as tools for measurement - how would you propose to allocate resources - even if you desire to produce the synthetic alternatives for your proposed solution ?
Did you miss out the part mentioned in my response that legislations will have to be effected in parallel with social education - to nudge, incentivise, or as punitive measures - to have all parties act responsibly to preserve the environment when acting in their respective roles as consumers, manufacturers, and natural resource producers ?
The Story of Stuff presents only a narrow central theme - can it be the holy grail panacea for the reconciliation of man and its environment ?
Did it offer any workable alternative for societies to advance forward towards the ideal standards for mankind in this 21st Century, and into the future ?
Questions still remain unanswered as to how to priorities and allocate the use of the finite resources as the various communities go about their economic activities, and to protect the environment at the same time.
Would it be too much to ask if you could make statements addressing my claims rather than post questions in return? Maybe you're ironically trying to make me think from your perspective, but communication will remain unclear at this rate since I can only imply what're you trying to drive at.
Let me clarify, there is no such states of society as "utopia" because as I've said, all systems are in a state of evolution. While you may be right that we always strive towards an ideal, it means that society should always keep improving. That being said, no where in this thread did I once refer to "utopia" or "perfect world", only a better world where the human well-being is placed first.
Having established this, after thousands of years using the monetary system and having access to so much information via the Internet, I do not see how anyone could come to the conclusion that it is the "most efficient form of transaction of economic exchanges between societies". Not only is a billion people, and likely more, starving everyday, but 34,000 children are dying each day from preventable causes, which could be solved with present-day technology. Why? Probably because they lack access to the necessities of life due to poverty. Surely its time for Mankind to transcend the monetary system, removing it because abundance through technology makes it unnecessary to regulate distribution that perpetuates suffering round the world.
I've already presented the alternative, a world without money- a concept presented in Zeitgeist Addendum Perhaps you cannot even fathom it because of your conditioning. I'll give you a couple of examples in energy. In 2006, MIT reported that present technology then could extract 4,000 years worth of energy. Today, the amount of energy that we receive from the Sun in 6 hours could power the Earth for a year. Just by harnassing three thousandths of the world's deserts would give the world an abundance of energy. And that's just two avenues of renewable energy. In a world where energy is so abundant, wouldnt it be inhumane to continue to charge for it? That's just like charging for air or sea water. While our world was based on scarcity, thus requiring a monetary system, circumstances are different today which justifies a need for a different social system in order to drive social evolution. You have to move away from the mentality that even in a society of abundance, people will still have to work/pay in some form or another, for the necessities of life.
In addition, when the monetary system is removed, many sub-institutions also vanishes along with it because they largely help to regulate peoples' behaviour in a monetary system, the legal system, the political system, the educational system. It is a redesign of a culture. With that, it is important to understand that the first step to evolution is not some tangible manifestation, some new technology, but first, an evolution in consciousness.
"The old appeals to racial, sexual and religious chauvinism and to rabid nationalism are beginning not to work. A new consciousness is developing which sees the earth as a single organism and recognizes that an organism at war with itself is doomed. We are one planet."
- Carl Sagan, Cosmos: Who Speaks for the Earth
I will not bother with claims this is communism; if you took the time to fully understand this concept, its merely about bettering the human well-being with the tools that we have; in your words the "pursuit of betterment in Life" It has completely no bearing on Marxist/ Leninist or any other label that you want to paste on it, which divides people because of the different associations they have.
While I agree with Rajaratnam, the reason why people are not well-informed; in fact informed people are considered the exception rather than the norm, is because of our culture created by the monetary system- the perpetuation of a consumeristic society. In that sense, The Story of Stuff reveals the flaws of such a society. But for a solution, Zeitgeist Addendum provides the best that I've seen. How else can you get people to think outside of their frames of reference if they are perpetually bombarded with messages that promote insecurity and are conditioned to remedy it with material objects?
"The average person in the U.S. watches about four hours of television each day. Over the course of a year, we see roughly twenty-five thousand commercials, many of them produced by the world’s highest paid cognitive psychologists. Their job is to figure out how to grab our attention and make us feel deficient if we don’t own their clients’ products. And these heavily produced advertisements are not merely for products, but for a lifestyle based on a consumer mind-set. What they’re doing, day in and day out, twenty-five thousand times a year, is hypnotizing us into seeing ourselves as consumers who want to be entertained rather than as citizens who want to be informed and engaged. We need to take back the airwaves as a sphere of mature conversation and dialogue about our common future."
- Duane Elgin on Simplicity and Humanity's future
-
sebei lor sor
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
Would it be too much to ask if you could make statements addressing my claims rather than post questions in return? Maybe you're ironically trying to make me think from your perspective, but communication will remain unclear at this rate since I can only imply what're you trying to drive at.
If you noticed - I have actually dissected your reply into the relevant paragraphs that had addressed your separated claims, and from which I made my statements through the questions asked that were intended to have your focus on the issues in your reply.
Let me clarify, there is no such states of society as "utopia" because as I've said, all systems are in a state of evolution. While you may be right that we always strive towards an ideal, it means that society should always keep improving. That being said, no where in this thread did I once refer to "utopia" or "perfect world", only a better world where the human well-being is placed first.
The intelligent and energetic Homo Sapien will always never be satisfied with the status quo, and will always make situations and systems evolve to reach some kind of nirvana or utopic state, and after being bored will strive again to the next level.
Should it be necessary for you to be explicit in refering to "utopia" or "perfect world" for anyone to discern what you had intended ?
Can there be a better world where the human well-being is placed first ?
In the process of evolution through human effort or through the normal passage of time - would that "better world" not be a "perfect world" compared to the present one ?
Having established this, after thousands of years using the monetary system and having access to so much information via the Internet, I do not see how anyone could come to the conclusion that it is the "most efficient form of transaction of economic exchanges between societies". Not only is a billion people, and likely more, starving everyday, but 34,000 children are dying each day from preventable causes, which could be solved with present-day technology. Why? Probably because they lack access to the necessities of life due to poverty. Surely its time for Mankind to transcend the monetary system, removing it because abundance through technology makes it unnecessary to regulate distribution that perpetuates suffering round the world.
I've already presented the alternative, a world without money- a concept presented in Zeitgeist Addendum Perhaps you cannot even fathom it because of your conditioning. I'll give you a couple of examples in energy. In 2006, MIT reported that present technology then could extract 4,000 years worth of energy. Today, the amount of energy that we receive from the Sun in 6 hours could power the Earth for a year. Just by harnassing three thousandths of the world's deserts would give the world an abundance of energy. And that's just two avenues of renewable energy. In a world where energy is so abundant, wouldnt it be inhumane to continue to charge for it? That's just like charging for air or sea water. While our world was based on scarcity, thus requiring a monetary system, circumstances are different today which justifies a need for a different social system in order to drive social evolution. You have to move away from the mentality that even in a society of abundance, people will still have to work/pay in some form or another, for the necessities of life.
Are you not indulging in fantasy to accept a concept presented in your Zeitgeist Addendum that is at best an adolescent revolt against the established order - towards a system that has been refined through more then a thousand years of evolution in the History of Mankind ?
Are you not being simplistic to place in a nutshell that poverty is due to a "lack of access to the necessities of Life" - and place the blame on the monetary system ?
Did you not discern the reasons or causes for such countries facing poverty that remained unable to transcend from their status quo, and have the ingenuity to find those resources to meet the needs of that community suffering poverty ?
Just look at the poverty suffered in North Korea compared to the wealth and abundance in South Korea - was the poverty in the North due to the failure of the monetary system ? Was there any lack to the access to technology, or was the absence of technology being imposed deliberately by its Political Leadership ?
There are abundant reasons and causes for poverty to exist, and without being racist in making the following statements - some communities are less developed, less enterprising, less industrious, less energetic, less in everything compared to their more advance cousins in other ethnic communities.
Could genetics be the cause for the poverty, or was it due largely to God's dealing a sleight of hand in putting some ethnic communities in some God-forsaken place as a test for the "chosen people" to survive in God's carefully chosen ways ?
Some of these communities are the Australian aboriginese, the African bushmen, and the lost tribes in the jungles in Brazil, Papua New Guinea, Irian Jaya, and countless others.
Do these communities possess any semblance of a monetary system breakdown to cause their present conditions ?
Can they be considered poor by any standards ?
These are the special ethnic groups that form basic primitive communities that do not destructively consumed nature's gifts in order to survive.
Should the 21st Century Homo Sapien accustomed to the evolution in modernity revert back to the Stone Age of these primitive tribesmen ?
In addition, when the monetary system is removed, many sub-institutions also vanishes along with it because they largely help to regulate peoples' behaviour in a monetary system, the legal system, the political system, the educational system. It is a redesign of a culture. With that, it is important to understand that the first step to evolution is not some tangible manifestation, some new technology, but first, an evolution in consciousness.
Where do you intend the evolution of conciousness to bring us to ?
Can the evolutionary history of the 21st Century Homo Sapien be turned on and off - and take on a new evolutionary path ?
Even if a concious effort is made to change the entire eco-culture of Human existence, can the new revolutionary system replace what has taken more then a thousand years to evolve ?
"The old appeals to racial, sexual and religious chauvinism and to rabid nationalism are beginning not to work. A new consciousness is developing which sees the earth as a single organism and recognizes that an organism at war with itself is doomed. We are one planet."
- Carl Sagan, Cosmos: Who Speaks for the Earth
I will not bother with claims this is communism; if you took the time to fully understand this concept, its merely about bettering the human well-being with the tools that we have; in your words the "pursuit of betterment in Life" It has completely no bearing on Marxist/ Leninist or any other label that you want to paste on it, which divides people because of the different associations they have.
Clearly you have been indulging in too many Sci-fic movies - in the MATRIX genre.
Blue Pill for you ?
Perhaps the Red Pill - when you decide to allow your emotions to take a bust ?
Is the Human Life to be moderated to the extent of being devoid of enthusiasm, attraction, emotions, passion, energy ?
While I agree with Rajaratnam, the reason why people are not well-informed; in fact informed people are considered the exception rather than the norm, is because of our culture created by the monetary system- the perpetuation of a consumeristic society. In that sense, The Story of Stuff reveals the flaws of such a society. But for a solution, Zeitgeist Addendum provides the best that I've seen. How else can you get people to think outside of their frames of reference if they are perpetually bombarded with messages that promote insecurity and are conditioned to remedy it with material objects?
More often then not, Rajaratnam spoke as the PAP Politician with the PAP agenda and goals in his mind.
Unfortunately, the times that he speak with intellectual honesty is seldom revealed to Singaporeans, as the PAP do not want Singaporeans to see the clash of the titans within the PAP CEC.
It was said that Rajaratnam and his colleagues in the First Generation were prepared to confront LKY and have robust debate on the policy directions taken that they do not agree with.
Can your "Story of Stuff" and "Zeitgeist Addendum" be practically implemented, or are they not simply the works of rebels ?
Every few generations will spawn new trends that will question the status quo, and evolve new ideas.
Back in the 1930s, just after the Great War in Europe - new social thinking emerged that broke the social prejudices across national borders and changed political thinking around the world.
In the 1960s, during the Vietnam War period - it was the Hippie Culture that turned the establishment on its head, and questioned the prevailing Status Quo then.
In the 1990s, the PC and electronic technology liberated communication and made the world smaller, and allowed faster communication and transactions.
In another thirty years, do you seriously believe that your "Story of Stuff" and "Zeitgeist Addendum" will be so profound that it will evolve a new social philosophy that will spark a new revolution in the thinking of the Homo Sapien ?
"The average person in the U.S. watches about four hours of television each day. Over the course of a year, we see roughly twenty-five thousand commercials, many of them produced by the world’s highest paid cognitive psychologists. Their job is to figure out how to grab our attention and make us feel deficient if we don’t own their clients’ products. And these heavily produced advertisements are not merely for products, but for a lifestyle based on a consumer mind-set. What they’re doing, day in and day out, twenty-five thousand times a year, is hypnotizing us into seeing ourselves as consumers who want to be entertained rather than as citizens who want to be informed and engaged. We need to take back the airwaves as a sphere of mature conversation and dialogue about our common future."
- Duane Elgin on Simplicity and Humanity's future
You seem to be fixxated with the known and identified weaknesses of consumerism, which is a carry over from the 19th Century - without realising the growing awareness of the 21st Century Homo Sapiens to these same concerns expressed by you.
Across the industrialised countries, the common theme has been to protect the environment, recycling, cutting down on waste, search for alternative fuels, Green environment products, etc., etc., etc.
You seem to think that the "Story of Stuff" and "Zeitgeist Addendum" - or other similar philosophies - will be the final solution for all the human ills on this globe.
Whatever the approach that is to be taken, there remain the persistent constraints in terms of labor, time, and resources available to solve the known problems.
Decisions on priorities will have to be taken.
How does one measure what comes first, measuring the costs involve for delaying, or for early implementation ?
Should we use bits and bytes instead of the familiar dollars and cents ?
-
wah lau!!! super lor sor!
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
If you noticed - I have actually dissected your reply into the relevant paragraphs that had addressed your separated claims, and from which I made my statements through the questions asked that were intended to have your focus on the issues in your reply.
The intelligent and energetic Homo Sapien will always never be satisfied with the status quo, and will always make situations and systems evolve to reach some kind of nirvana or utopic state, and after being bored will strive again to the next level.
Should it be necessary for you to be explicit in refering to "utopia" or "perfect world" for anyone to discern what you had intended ?
Can there be a better world where the human well-being is placed first ?
In the process of evolution through human effort or through the normal passage of time - would that "better world" not be a "perfect world" compared to the present one ?
Are you not indulging in fantasy to accept a concept presented in your Zeitgeist Addendum that is at best an adolescent revolt against the established order - towards a system that has been refined through more then a thousand years of evolution in the History of Mankind ?
Are you not being simplistic to place in a nutshell that poverty is due to a "lack of access to the necessities of Life" - and place the blame on the monetary system ?
Did you not discern the reasons or causes for such countries facing poverty that remained unable to transcend from their status quo, and have the ingenuity to find those resources to meet the needs of that community suffering poverty ?
Just look at the poverty suffered in North Korea compared to the wealth and abundance in South Korea - was the poverty in the North due to the failure of the monetary system ? Was there any lack to the access to technology, or was the absence of technology being imposed deliberately by its Political Leadership ?
There are abundant reasons and causes for poverty to exist, and without being racist in making the following statements - some communities are less developed, less enterprising, less industrious, less energetic, less in everything compared to their more advance cousins in other ethnic communities.
Could genetics be the cause for the poverty, or was it due largely to God's dealing a sleight of hand in putting some ethnic communities in some God-forsaken place as a test for the "chosen people" to survive in God's carefully chosen ways ?
Some of these communities are the Australian aboriginese, the African bushmen, and the lost tribes in the jungles in Brazil, Papua New Guinea, Irian Jaya, and countless others.
Do these communities possess any semblance of a monetary system breakdown to cause their present conditions ?
Can they be considered poor by any standards ?
These are the special ethnic groups that form basic primitive communities that do not destructively consumed nature's gifts in order to survive.
Should the 21st Century Homo Sapien accustomed to the evolution in modernity revert back to the Stone Age of these primitive tribesmen ?
Where do you intend the evolution of conciousness to bring us to ?
Can the evolutionary history of the 21st Century Homo Sapien be turned on and off - and take on a new evolutionary path ?
Even if a concious effort is made to change the entire eco-culture of Human existence, can the new revolutionary system replace what has taken more then a thousand years to evolve ?
Clearly you have been indulging in too many Sci-fic movies - in the MATRIX genre.
Blue Pill for you ?
Perhaps the Red Pill - when you decide to allow your emotions to take a bust ?
Is the Human Life to be moderated to the extent of being devoid of enthusiasm, attraction, emotions, passion, energy ?
More often then not, Rajaratnam spoke as the PAP Politician with the PAP agenda and goals in his mind.
Unfortunately, the times that he speak with intellectual honesty is seldom revealed to Singaporeans, as the PAP do not want Singaporeans to see the clash of the titans within the PAP CEC.
It was said that Rajaratnam and his colleagues in the First Generation were prepared to confront LKY and have robust debate on the policy directions taken that they do not agree with.
Can your "Story of Stuff" and "Zeitgeist Addendum" be practically implemented, or are they not simply the works of rebels ?
Every few generations will spawn new trends that will question the status quo, and evolve new ideas.
Back in the 1930s, just after the Great War in Europe - new social thinking emerged that broke the social prejudices across national borders and changed political thinking around the world.
In the 1960s, during the Vietnam War period - it was the Hippie Culture that turned the establishment on its head, and questioned the prevailing Status Quo then.
In the 1990s, the PC and electronic technology liberated communication and made the world smaller, and allowed faster communication and transactions.
In another thirty years, do you seriously believe that your "Story of Stuff" and "Zeitgeist Addendum" will be so profound that it will evolve a new social philosophy that will spark a new revolution in the thinking of the Homo Sapien ?
You seem to be fixxated with the known and identified weaknesses of consumerism, which is a carry over from the 19th Century - without realising the growing awareness of the 21st Century Homo Sapiens to these same concerns expressed by you.
Across the industrialised countries, the common theme has been to protect the environment, recycling, cutting down on waste, search for alternative fuels, Green environment products, etc., etc., etc.
You seem to think that the "Story of Stuff" and "Zeitgeist Addendum" - or other similar philosophies - will be the final solution for all the human ills on this globe.
Whatever the approach that is to be taken, there remain the persistent constraints in terms of labor, time, and resources available to solve the known problems.
Decisions on priorities will have to be taken.
How does one measure what comes first, measuring the costs involve for delaying, or for early implementation ?
Should we use bits and bytes instead of the familiar dollars and cents ?
Why dont you answer your own questions yourself and justify them instead of asking me? I believe this will bring your points across more clearly.
I absolutely agree with your point on the constant evolution of our species, and it is on that note that I say that we have the capability and resources to create a substantially better world than today with the abolishing of the monetary system. That would be a world where the human well-being is placed first, without the constrains of making a profit or struggling to preserve the self.
If you understood this concept accurately, you wouldnt say that a better world would mean a perfect one. While that would seem perfect from the perspective of the typical, uninformed person, even that so-called perfect world would be improved over time, unlike our own, constrained by the inertia of cost. This remains true of human civilisation throughout history. At any specific point in time, people have considered themselves at the zenith of development, naturally to be dwarfed by future progress.
Moreover, do you seriously believe that our culture is not the least affected by the billions of dollars and millions of hours spent on advertisements across the spectrum of media available today? What about its effects on society? On how it is moulding the mindsets of millions of people? Making the claim that abolishing money would be extremely idealistic to you; naturally, because you cannot imagine anything outside of that frame of reference in a world where anything outside of earning a livelihood is deemed impractical, but ignoring the vast advertising industry is just plain naive.
May I know if you have watched The Story of Stuff and Zeitgeist Addendum, more so for Addendum? Because if you haven't, don't say its flawed when its your own understanding about it that is flawed.
-
bump
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
Why dont you answer your own questions yourself and justify them instead of asking me? I believe this will bring your points across more clearly.
Do I need to answer my own questions ?
If you cannot comprehend the simple sentence structured in the questions asked of you, there is nothing that can be done to help you focus on the controversial position that you prefer to adopt - which open yourself to being questioned.
I absolutely agree with your point on the constant evolution of our species, and it is on that note that I say that we have the capability and resources to create a substantially better world than today with the abolishing of the monetary system. That would be a world where the human well-being is placed first, without the constrains of making a profit or struggling to preserve the self.
You still have not given any indication as to what can replace the monetary system that has taken the entire history of the Homo Sapien to develop, and which allowed trade to exist across borders.
Neither have you given any clear response as to how you intend to prioritise the use of nature's resources when the value system has been stripped of any means to place a standard of measure to determine how best such limited resources are to be used.
Can there be any progress for the Homo Sapiens to move forward when what has been the essential parts that allow progress up to this point - is removed based on some skewed perception of the system ?
If you understood this concept accurately, you wouldnt say that a better world would mean a perfect one. While that would seem perfect from the perspective of the typical, uninformed person, even that so-called perfect world would be improved over time, unlike our own, constrained by the inertia of cost. This remains true of human civilisation throughout history. At any specific point in time, people have considered themselves at the zenith of development, naturally to be dwarfed by future progress.
If a "better world" cannot mean a "perfect one" - even in a transitory moment as man continuously evolve - then what is the purpose of evolution ?
Can cost be in any state of inertia ?
You have again allowed yourself to be constrained by your own preferred restricted and skewed views of Human Civilization throughout History by deriding our ancestors for their limited achievements.
"At any specific point in time, people have considered themselves at the zenith of development" - due to the limited technology and scientific knowledge up to that point in time.
Are our ancestors at fault for stopping at their development point in History and allowed themselves to be dwarfed by the progress discovered in our Century ?
What about our generation at this point in time in the Year 2009 ?
Are we to be blamed for the existing scientific or technological developments that has limited our progress up to this stage in the Year 2009 - when some time into the future in Year 4009, new technologies would have been reached that make us look silly by future generations for our inability to break though the current glass ceiling ?
Moreover, do you seriously believe that our culture is not the least affected by the billions of dollars and millions of hours spent on advertisements across the spectrum of media available today? What about its effects on society? On how it is moulding the mindsets of millions of people? Making the claim that abolishing money would be extremely idealistic to you; naturally, because you cannot imagine anything outside of that frame of reference in a world where anything outside of earning a livelihood is deemed impractical, but ignoring the vast advertising industry is just plain naive.
Did you miss out on my analogy of the lost tribes on this globe that manages to live without any monetary system, and has been able to survive by living off nature's resources in a very balanced manner without destroying the environment ?
Are you suggesting that we return to that Stone Age lifestyle ?
You have not given any credible alternative to the "Monetary System" that human civilization has depended on for the last few hundred centuries; neither have you come up with any solution to measure priorities and values when you proposed to remove the "Profit" element in any decision to apply our energy and judgment to use the finite nature's resources for our human progress.
For all the shortfalls of the Industrial and Commercial Age, the progress achieved by the modern Homo Sapiens to this stage - is quite remarkable, when you consider that the Lost Tribes also exist in parallel over the same time span.
Is pulling the plug and quitting the existing status quo the solution - when there is no sound alternative available from you ?
May I know if you have watched The Story of Stuff and Zeitgeist Addendum, more so for Addendum? Because if you haven't, don't say its flawed when its your own understanding about it that is flawed.
You can be assured that both your recommended documentaries were perused, and I can only comment that these are good for empty minds that needs filling - subject to such minds remaining malleable during the process.
Without empty and undiscerning minds that are at the same time non-circumspect about issues, these two controversial stories will find no audience.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
Do I need to answer my own questions ?
If you cannot comprehend the simple sentence structured in the questions asked of you, there is nothing that can be done to help you focus on the controversial position that you prefer to adopt - which open yourself to being questioned.
You still have not given any indication as to what can replace the monetary system that has taken the entire history of the Homo Sapien to develop, and which allowed trade to exist across borders.
Neither have you given any clear response as to how you intend to prioritise the use of nature's resources when the value system has been stripped of any means to place a standard of measure to determine how best such limited resources are to be used.
Can there be any progress for the Homo Sapiens to move forward when what has been the essential parts that allow progress up to this point - is removed based on some skewed perception of the system ?
If a "better world" cannot mean a "perfect one" - even in a transitory moment as man continuously evolve - then what is the purpose of evolution ?
Can cost be in any state of inertia ?
You have again allowed yourself to be constrained by your own preferred restricted and skewed views of Human Civilization throughout History by deriding our ancestors for their limited achievements.
"At any specific point in time, people have considered themselves at the zenith of development" - due to the limited technology and scientific knowledge up to that point in time.
Are our ancestors at fault for stopping at their development point in History and allowed themselves to be dwarfed by the progress discovered in our Century ?
What about our generation at this point in time in the Year 2009 ?
Are we to be blamed for the existing scientific or technological developments that has limited our progress up to this stage in the Year 2009 - when some time into the future in Year 4009, new technologies would have been reached that make us look silly by future generations for our inability to break though the current glass ceiling ?
Did you miss out on my analogy of the lost tribes on this globe that manages to live without any monetary system, and has been able to survive by living off nature's resources in a very balanced manner without destroying the environment ?
Are you suggesting that we return to that Stone Age lifestyle ?
You have not given any credible alternative to the "Monetary System" that human civilization has depended on for the last few hundred centuries; neither have you come up with any solution to measure priorities and values when you proposed to remove the "Profit" element in any decision to apply our energy and judgment to use the finite nature's resources for our human progress.
For all the shortfalls of the Industrial and Commercial Age, the progress achieved by the modern Homo Sapiens to this stage - is quite remarkable, when you consider that the Lost Tribes also exist in parallel over the same time span.
Is pulling the plug and quitting the existing status quo the solution - when there is no sound alternative available from you ?
You can be assured that both your recommended documentaries were perused, and I can only comment that these are good for empty minds that needs filling - subject to such minds remaining malleable during the process.
Without empty and undiscerning minds that are at the same time non-circumspect about issues, these two controversial stories will find no audience.
From your reply it doesn't seem you have taken the time to watch Zeitgeist Addendum because if you did, you wouldnt be asking what is going to replace the monetary system etc which reveals your complete lack of understanding about the documentary and its tenets. Reading a summary or what others have said about it is not the same as relating your own experiences to the ideas presented.
I was not deriding any social system for their lack of technological progress. You got to understand that all social systems are never stagnant, just like a plant is always changing. It is in that context that I say a perfect world or utopia can never be achieved. A utopia or perfect world would imply nothing can be improved further when technological progress is always taking place in our society. It is a meaningless word without bearing on reality.By inertia of cost, I was using the term figuratively as you would have known. When there are millions of dollars of vested interest behind a certain social institution, such as the pharmaceutical or military-industrial complex, any fundamental shift in priorities would definitely be resisted regardless of the benefits to human well-being. One of the many instances of this would be when Bayer knowingly shipped vaccines contaminated with HIV to Europe and Asia while taking it off the US market, resulting in the deaths of thousands, because of the need to turn a profit from this disaster.
It would be foolish to want to return to the stone-age when we have such advanced technology today. I don't know where you got the impression that I did. What I advocated is the usage of our technology and our resources solely to promote the social and human well-being without any thought for profit since there will be no money. That would seem unbelievable and impractical to most people since they have been indoctrinated in a world of scarcity and in the infallability of the monetary system. While you mentioned that the Lost Tribes were able to live sustainability, surely their standard of living cannot be compared to ours.
At a time when we could create abundance through technology, money simply serves to perpetuate scarcity as an outdated tool of society. I'm not discounting the usefulness of money, rather it has outlived its usefulness. While nature is full of change, many self-proclaimed guardians of the status quo seem to reject progress based on a static worldview that is reinforced by an equally rigid ego association with those same beliefs.
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
From your reply it doesn't seem you have taken the time to watch Zeitgeist Addendum because if you did, you wouldnt be asking what is going to replace the monetary system etc which reveals your complete lack of understanding about the documentary and its tenets. Reading a summary or what others have said about it is not the same as relating your own experiences to the ideas presented.
If I did not go through the 13 parts of the Zeitgeist : Addendum would I have been able to ask you the questions that I have asked ?
It may interest you to know that I have gone through all 13 parts - each averaging 10 minutes plus; and I have even gone beyond that by also watching an open discussion between the Peter Joseph (the creator of Zeitgeist :Addendum) and its ardent critic Alex Jones (*1) - which I found this Saturday morning trying to find some reference material to reply you.
On a side note, you may want to also include your review by watching independent comments from a neutral observer in the discussion between Alex Jones and Peter Joseph(*2) and also include a separate Internet interview of Peter Joseph on the Power House(*3) that is availabe in 7 parts.
It is interesting to note that "my" questions were asked by Alex Jones to Peter Joseph, and I remain unconvinced to the viability of The Solution in settling the global problems faced today.
As much as the ideas are clearly expressed - they remain simplistically idealistic and disconnect with reality in the implementation stage.
I was not deriding any social system for their lack of technological progress. You got to understand that all social systems are never stagnant, just like a plant is always changing. It is in that context that I say a perfect world or utopia can never be achieved. A utopia or perfect world would imply nothing can be improved further when technological progress is always taking place in our society. It is a meaningless word without bearing on reality.
No, you were not deriding any social system in your statement concerning the people acheiving the zenith of their development at any specific point in time, only to be dwarfed by future progress.
Is the desire for a better world and the journey strived not similar to the eargerly hoped for 'Utopia' ?
Can the Homo Sapien ever be static, ever be satisfied - even with "Utopia" attained ?
Is the insatiable desire of the Homo Sapien not a reality - even dealing with "Utopia" ?
By inertia of cost, I was using the term figuratively as you would have known. When there are millions of dollars of vested interest behind a certain social institution, such as the pharmaceutical or military-industrial complex, any fundamental shift in priorities would definitely be resisted regardless of the benefits to human well-being. One of the many instances of this would be when Bayer knowingly shipped vaccines contaminated with HIV to Europe and Asia while taking it off the US market, resulting in the deaths of thousands, because of the need to turn a profit from this disaster.
If what you claim is true, why is there no community or even national actions taken against Bayer ?
In 1984, the MNC Union Carbide that manufacture Eveready batteries was hauled to court by the Indian Government, and a parallel Class Action was taken by the victims of the industrial accident in Bhopal, India. The outcome was successful for the claims made.
It will be unbelieveable if the European and Asian Governments will not take action against Bayer.
It would be foolish to want to return to the stone-age when we have such advanced technology today. I don't know where you got the impression that I did. What I advocated is the usage of our technology and our resources solely to promote the social and human well-being without any thought for profit since there will be no money. That would seem unbelievable and impractical to most people since they have been indoctrinated in a world of scarcity and in the infallability of the monetary system. While you mentioned that the Lost Tribes were able to live sustainability, surely their standard of living cannot be compared to ours.
'Zeitgeist : Addendum' is advocating a total redesign of society that includes the call for change in present attitudes in the dependence of the use of money, the removal of the profit system in all aspect of human endeavor due to its corrupting influences.
This will practically require the Human Society as we know it today - to return to the lives of the Lost Tribes that lived without any knowledge of the use of money nor profit.
At a time when we could create abundance through technology, money simply serves to perpetuate scarcity as an outdated tool of society. I'm not discounting the usefulness of money, rather it has outlived its usefulness. While nature is full of change, many self-proclaimed guardians of the status quo seem to reject progress based on a static worldview that is reinforced by an equally rigid ego association with those same beliefs.
The question that was asked since the beginning of this discussion remains without your answer - "What replace money for the purpose of the various human transactions that we are familiar with up to this point of Human History ?"
If there was any answer given it was not clearly discernible - what is your answer to this and other questions made in my previous postings ?
How did you come to the conclusion that "rigid ego association with those same beliefs" will prevent acceptance of the changes as propounded by your "Zeitgeist : Addendum" ?
From the discussion between Alex Jones and Peter Joseph - it seems that there will be "Zeitgeist : Addendum TWO" to correct some "weaknesses" in the first edition.
While it has been identified that "money" corrupts - it remains to be the established and most efficient form of exchange between different communities that has been perfected constantly over the entire history of the Homo Sapien on earth.
While it has been known that "Profit" can prevent more efficient implementation of scientific discoveries - it remains to be the most "optimum arbiter tool" in determining the use of finite resources for the needs of the Homo Sapien.
As in all things, these are open to abuse - do we "throw out the baby with the dirty bath water from the basin" ?
As much as there are positive aspects propounded by Peter Joseph in his conviction of the Zeitgeist:Addendum - the danger of his message is that the Social Order or Organisation of Society that we are familiar today will need to be structurally change.
To replace the current Social Order - Zeitgeist : Addendum propose a new World Structure that features a flat social organisation of equal Homo Sapiens, where decisions are centrally made for the needs of the population of the world, where corporation do not exist but are replaced by commonly owned productive assets.
How does national assets within sovereign territorial boundaries be renegotiated in a new World Order ?
Can a unified global flat social organisation of equal Homo Sapiens exist that will surmount national and human instincts ?
As I had said before - your recommended 'Zeitgeist : Addendum' is "good for empty minds that needs filling - subject to such minds remaining malleable during the process".
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
If I did not go through the 13 parts of the Zeitgeist : Addendum would I have been able to ask you the questions that I have asked ?
It may interest you to know that I have gone through all 13 parts - each averaging 10 minutes plus; and I have even gone beyond that by also watching an open discussion between the Peter Joseph (the creator of Zeitgeist :Addendum) and its ardent critic Alex Jones (*1) - which I found this Saturday morning trying to find some reference material to reply you.
On a side note, you may want to also include your review by watching independent comments from a neutral observer in the discussion between Alex Jones and Peter Joseph(*2) and also include a separate Internet interview of Peter Joseph on the Power House(*3) that is availabe in 7 parts.
It is interesting to note that "my" questions were asked by Alex Jones to Peter Joseph, and I remain unconvinced to the viability of The Solution in settling the global problems faced today.
As much as the ideas are clearly expressed - they remain simplistically idealistic and disconnect with reality in the implementation stage.
No, you were not deriding any social system in your statement concerning the people acheiving the zenith of their development at any specific point in time, only to be dwarfed by future progress.
Is the desire for a better world and the journey strived not similar to the eargerly hoped for 'Utopia' ?
Can the Homo Sapien ever be static, ever be satisfied - even with "Utopia" attained ?
Is the insatiable desire of the Homo Sapien not a reality - even dealing with "Utopia" ?
If what you claim is true, why is there no community or even national actions taken against Bayer ?
In 1984, the MNC Union Carbide that manufacture Eveready batteries was hauled to court by the Indian Government, and a parallel Class Action was taken by the victims of the industrial accident in Bhopal, India. The outcome was successful for the claims made.
It will be unbelieveable if the European and Asian Governments will not take action against Bayer.
'Zeitgeist : Addendum' is advocating a total redesign of society that includes the call for change in present attitudes in the dependence of the use of money, the removal of the profit system in all aspect of human endeavor due to its corrupting influences.
This will practically require the Human Society as we know it today - to return to the lives of the Lost Tribes that lived without any knowledge of the use of money nor profit.
The question that was asked since the beginning of this discussion remains without your answer - "What replace money for the purpose of the various human transactions that we are familiar with up to this point of Human History ?"
If there was any answer given it was not clearly discernible - what is your answer to this and other questions made in my previous postings ?
How did you come to the conclusion that "rigid ego association with those same beliefs" will prevent acceptance of the changes as propounded by your "Zeitgeist : Addendum" ?
From the discussion between Alex Jones and Peter Joseph - it seems that there will be "Zeitgeist : Addendum TWO" to correct some "weaknesses" in the first edition.
While it has been identified that "money" corrupts - it remains to be the established and most efficient form of exchange between different communities that has been perfected constantly over the entire history of the Homo Sapien on earth.
While it has been known that "Profit" can prevent more efficient implementation of scientific discoveries - it remains to be the most "optimum arbiter tool" in determining the use of finite resources for the needs of the Homo Sapien.
As in all things, these are open to abuse - do we "throw out the baby with the dirty bath water from the basin" ?
As much as there are positive aspects propounded by Peter Joseph in his conviction of the Zeitgeist:Addendum - the danger of his message is that the Social Order or Organisation of Society that we are familiar today will need to be structurally change.
To replace the current Social Order - Zeitgeist : Addendum propose a new World Structure that features a flat social organisation of equal Homo Sapiens, where decisions are centrally made for the needs of the population of the world, where corporation do not exist but are replaced by commonly owned productive assets.
How does national assets within sovereign territorial boundaries be renegotiated in a new World Order ?
Can a unified global flat social organisation of equal Homo Sapiens exist that will surmount national and human instincts ?
As I had said before - your recommended 'Zeitgeist : Addendum' is "good for empty minds that needs filling - subject to such minds remaining malleable during the process".
Yes, I am familiar with the Jones-Joseph interview. Its a waste that Alex Jones chose to behave in a childish way since both movements have plenty in common.
Anyway, I apologise for assuming that you did not watch Zeitgeist Addendum since you made it clear you did.
I believe the usage of the terms "utopia" and "evil" was addressed during the first or second part of the interview. One obstacle to clear communication today is the using of such words which has numerous definitions based on peoples' own associations with them. Not only does this make those words (such as "democracy", "freedom" or "liberty") meaningless, but they are counterproductive in any discussion because of the emotion they stir up. And so I state this again, there can never be an "utopia" in existence.
However, if you have to be stubborn about it, I'll put it this way. "When people wish to improve, they strive towards perfection." Although "perfection" doesnt exist, it sums up the process towards progress, though that does not mean there is a final frontier. In the same way, you could state that "Society strives towards utopia in pursuit of a better world". But in reality, society improves as progress is made in the fields of technology, healthcare etc. The "utopia" here refers to an improved state of a dynamic society. But even then, using "utopia" would not be using it according to its prevalent definition and is semantically wrong.
There's no "If its true.." because it really happened. This comes as a shock to me since this story is at least 2 years old. If your news sources didnt cover this story, definitely more serious than Michael Jackson's death, I suggest you turn to more relevant and informed sources. Some media sources are propagated to maintain the status quo, others are here to inform. A good place would be GlobalResearch. And yes, I'm glad you are questioning why nothing is being done and why no one is being held accountable because thats the same question I would like answered in the mainstream media.
Another such incident took place at least 6 months ago, on a more serious scale when Baxter International shipped vaccine material contaminated with the live wild type H5N1 virus to 16 different laboratories in 4 European countries. Considering the kind of biosafety regulations in place on potential bioweapons, it certainly is disturbing. And again, if you havent heard of the Bayer incident, I'm almost certain you havent heard of this one. Not only is nothing being done to hold those involved accountable, but Bayer is one of the corporations that the WHO has tasked with developing a H1N1 vaccine. Doesnt that raise questions? I hope these two incidents would allow everyone to re-examine their worldviews.
Anyway, I sent a letter to the ST about this, as well as, casting doubt on the safety of the soon-to-come swine flu vaccine. Predictably, it didnt get published. It would be heresy for the establishment. Anyway, I'll post it on the forum.
Does the abolishing of money and the profit system equal to the destruction of our scientific knowledge accumulated for centuries and our technology based on that knowledge? If so, then yes, I agree such a move would be a return to the Stone Age.
It is here that you show your lack of understand of the proposal in Zeitgeist Addendum. Perhaps, thats the result of your own conditioning. Nothing is going to replace money. It will be a world where the necessities of life are provided without any cost to anyone because of technologically-created abundance and also a result of technological unemployment- another key concept presented. But in today's consumerist society, that would be overstretching the Earth's resources, which is why a redesign of our culture must also take place. People have to realise the meaninglessness of the work-consume cycle fueled by consumerism.
"For centuries we have been conditioned by nationality, caste, class, tradition, religion, language, education, literature, art, custom, convention, propaganda of all kinds, economic pressure, the food we eat, the climate we live in, our family, our friends, our experiences—every influence you can think of—and, therefore, our responses to every problem are conditioned. Are you aware that you are conditioned?"
-J. Krishnamurti
Is it the most optimum when at least a billion people are starving everyday and the FAO has been reporting there is more than sufficient food being produced? Is it the most optimum when 7 children die every second from preventable causes? And how do you know if its the most optimum when nothing like this has been tried before? All that we have known are social systems that have regulated goods through different modes of exchange. The typical reaction to Zeitgeist Addendum is the result of this conditioning.
You need to think about the impact of removing the monetary system on our world holistically. If such a world were to exist, concepts of nationality, race, colour, religion would gradually vanish because such differences are superficial. Everything changes. The politics (or the lack of it because there is no more vested interest-money involved), education, law etc. It is a redesign of our culture. As Carl Sagan said, "We are one planet."
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
Yes, I am familiar with the Jones-Joseph interview. Its a waste that Alex Jones chose to behave in a childish way since both movements have plenty in common.
Anyway, I apologise for assuming that you did not watch Zeitgeist Addendum since you made it clear you did.
Alex Jones was merely performing his role as an inquistor even as he recognised the efforts made by Peter Joseph in making 'Zeitgeist:Addendum' and offering it for sale at such a give away price.
No apologies needed, and my thanks for bringing this controversial idea into the forefront - although I have heard of it from some conversation early this year but did not bother to follow up with the issue.
I believe the usage of the terms "utopia" and "evil" was addressed during the first or second part of the interview. One obstacle to clear communication today is the using of such words which has numerous definitions based on peoples' own associations with them. Not only does this make those words (such as "democracy", "freedom" or "liberty") meaningless, but they are counterproductive in any discussion because of the emotion they stir up. And so I state this again, there can never be an "utopia" in existence.
Yes, even as much as Peter Joseph decline to use the word "utopia" as insisted by Alex Jones - if I understood Peter's position correctly amidst the jockeying pressure from Alex - Peter did concede that if that was how Alex understanding of the ultimate state to be achieved in Zeitgeist solution.
If you mean it the way that is stated - as in a physical state of real existence, I would agree.
However, if 'utopia' as generally understood as a form of "a desired state to be", or "an aspiration" - then 'utopia' exist in the state of mind where all things are hoped to be perfectly in a state of equilibrium, without friction, and at peace.
In such a place in the "land of utopia" - is there a need for democracy, freedom, justice, or liberty ?
However, if you have to be stubborn about it, I'll put it this way. "When people wish to improve, they strive towards perfection." Although "perfection" doesnt exist, it sums up the process towards progress, though that does not mean there is a final frontier. In the same way, you could state that "Society strives towards utopia in pursuit of a better world". But in reality, society improves as progress is made in the fields of technology, healthcare etc. The "utopia" here refers to an improved state of a dynamic society. But even then, using "utopia" would not be using it according to its prevalent definition and is semantically wrong.
Are you not indulging in semantics and being over precise in splitting hairs to seek some definition that remains unclear in your thought process to push your idea as dealt out in Zeitgeist : Addendum ?
How can "perfection" not exist - when it serves as an end by itself that is measurable by comparison from where one's effort began, or it can be an intermittent point in a journey towards some ultimate point ?
Dynamism is a state of flux, as in the all human activities that include all kinds of processes in whatever field that you can think of.
Your own concession that "utopia" here refers to an improved state of a dynamic society - brings you back to a position that you had earlier decline to be at.
Seriously, how many prevailing definitions can you offer for the simple word "utopia" ?
There's no "If its true.." because it really happened. This comes as a shock to me since this story is at least 2 years old. If your news sources didnt cover this story, definitely more serious than Michael Jackson's death, I suggest you turn to more relevant and informed sources. Some media sources are propagated to maintain the status quo, others are here to inform. A good place would be GlobalResearch. And yes, I'm glad you are questioning why nothing is being done and why no one is being held accountable because thats the same question I would like answered in the mainstream media.
Bayer is a reputable multi-national corporation with global operations in several continents as well as in this Little Red Dot.
If it really happened it would have hit the headlines for the magnitude of the scandal.
Unless there is more certainty in the facts with verifiable sources that allow the news reporters something to chew onto, they will not want to be led on a wild goose chase.
This is surely and only to be expected from Singapore news reporters who are shackled by the PAP appointee sitting at different levels of SPH.
Another such incident took place at least 6 months ago, on a more serious scale when Baxter International shipped vaccine material contaminated with the live wild type H5N1 virus to 16 different laboratories in 4 European countries. Considering the kind of biosafety regulations in place on potential bioweapons, it certainly is disturbing. And again, if you havent heard of the Bayer incident, I'm almost certain you havent heard of this one. Not only is nothing being done to hold those involved accountable, but Bayer is one of the corporations that the WHO has tasked with developing a H1N1 vaccine. Doesnt that raise questions? I hope these two incidents would allow everyone to re-examine their worldviews.
Anyway, I sent a letter to the ST about this, as well as, casting doubt on the safety of the soon-to-come swine flu vaccine. Predictably, it didnt get published. It would be heresy for the establishment. Anyway, I'll post it on the forum.
I am not so certain about these reports, as about one month ago - I had come across one report of an Israeli lab operating in Mexico, or New Mexico in the USA, which had been experimenting with variations of a virus that resembled the H1N1 virus so as to develop a vaccine.
The vaccine was tested on a live volunteer after FDA approval was received, but somehow the volunteer was allowed to leave the confines of the lab, and he walked out of the facility never to be found despite the best efforts made to track him down.
About three weeks later, they received news that the volunteer had died and that there was an outbreak of the disease that carried the familiar and typical symptoms,
Records were hurriedly destroyed, and all kept silent as they watched events unfold across North America.
Somehow, no matter what I did, I simply could not return to retrieve this article.
Does the abolishing of money and the profit system equal to the destruction of our scientific knowledge accumulated for centuries and our technology based on that knowledge? If so, then yes, I agree such a move would be a return to the Stone Age.
It is here that you show your lack of understand of the proposal in Zeitgeist Addendum. Perhaps, thats the result of your own conditioning. Nothing is going to replace money. It will be a world where the necessities of life are provided without any cost to anyone because of technologically-created abundance and also a result of technological unemployment- another key concept presented. But in today's consumerist society, that would be overstretching the Earth's resources, which is why a redesign of our culture must also take place. People have to realise the meaninglessness of the work-consume cycle fueled by consumerism.
If money is no longer required, and if all necessities of life are provided without any cost to anyone - who pays for the development, manufacture or production, and distribution of these necessities ?
If all necessities of life are provided at no cost and without any employment needed - is there any use for the Homo Sapien physical or mental input ?
Is the Homo Sapien to fulfill the remaining task left in enjoying procreation ?
Call it what you like - conditioning or any other term - is there finally going to be "a free lunch" afterall ?
Something sinister here signal the cynical logic that nothing makes sense.
"For centuries we have been conditioned by nationality, caste, class, tradition, religion, language, education, literature, art, custom, convention, propaganda of all kinds, economic pressure, the food we eat, the climate we live in, our family, our friends, our experiences—every influence you can think of—and, therefore, our responses to every problem are conditioned. Are you aware that you are conditioned?"
-J. Krishnamurti
Conditioning is only one part of the Human Mind - as there are the other parts that are innate in one's instincts as planted into our DNA.
While the behaviourial part can be modified, taught, and conditioned, there are other parts that are instinctive or intuitional.
How does a newborn child instinctively know how to "use" the mother's nipples - by drawing on the nipples instead of suckling, or chew, or blow ?
How does a newborn child instinctively know how to differentiate the care giver from its own mother and father ?
Is it the most optimum when at least a billion people are starving everyday and the FAO has been reporting there is more than sufficient food being produced? Is it the most optimum when 7 children die every second from preventable causes? And how do you know if its the most optimum when nothing like this has been tried before? All that we have known are social systems that have regulated goods through different modes of exchange. The typical reaction to Zeitgeist Addendum is the result of this conditioning.
The typical Human Reaction to controversies such as Zeitgeist Addendum is due to the human intelligence to be cautious in unfamiliar territory.
Is such an attitude a result of conditioning, or circumspect in one's judgement due to experience or innate in one's level of common sense ?
The fact that there are people suffering around the globe due to famine, drought, diseases is largely due to the imbalance in the distribution of talent, intelligence, skills, knowledge, and perhaps level of sophistication in the society, in education, technology and finance.
In part, such misery exist due to the inability of the backward society or community to cope and keep pace with the progress made by other parallel societies or communities - (as in the previous Lost Tribe analogy).
You need to think about the impact of removing the monetary system on our world holistically. If such a world were to exist, concepts of nationality, race, colour, religion would gradually vanish because such differences are superficial. Everything changes. The politics (or the lack of it because there is no more vested interest-money involved), education, law etc. It is a redesign of our culture. As Carl Sagan said, "We are one planet."
If the money is not going to be replaced as you have so emphatically said, is there any need to think about the impact of removing the monetary system on our world - whether holistically or otherwise ?
Seriously do you believe that there can be a World where there is no concepts of nationality, race, color, religion - and where politics, education, law is no longer necessary, - and there are no class of rulers and ruled, no castes, no poverty, no wealth, - no need to spend on weapons, defenses, as there will be no wars, no quarrels, and all things are in total equilibrium ?
Who makes the decisions to produce what, who gets first delivery, who gets what proportions in weight or volume, who gets the choiciest or the worst parts ?
Who is in control ?
With the Homo Sapiens no longer required to work for money or personal profit - as all necessities will be provided, no need to learn or to be educated as this will open to new forms of conditioning,
Are Homo Sapiens to be held to ransom by technology, or held to ransom to those who created the technologies that this society had to depend on ?
This is a repeat of the Animal Farm in a future settings that resemble Orwellian 1984.
-
Oh...George orwell, i did literature at sec 1 with his novels..good for bed time reading. Shit , after reading all the above, i want to sleep again..yawn!!
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
Alex Jones was merely performing his role as an inquistor even as he recognised the efforts made by Peter Joseph in making 'Zeitgeist:Addendum' and offering it for sale at such a give away price.
No apologies needed, and my thanks for bringing this controversial idea into the forefront - although I have heard of it from some conversation early this year but did not bother to follow up with the issue.
Yes, even as much as Peter Joseph decline to use the word "utopia" as insisted by Alex Jones - if I understood Peter's position correctly amidst the jockeying pressure from Alex - Peter did concede that if that was how Alex understanding of the ultimate state to be achieved in Zeitgeist solution.
If you mean it the way that is stated - as in a physical state of real existence, I would agree.
However, if 'utopia' as generally understood as a form of "a desired state to be", or "an aspiration" - then 'utopia' exist in the state of mind where all things are hoped to be perfectly in a state of equilibrium, without friction, and at peace.
In such a place in the "land of utopia" - is there a need for democracy, freedom, justice, or liberty ?
Are you not indulging in semantics and being over precise in splitting hairs to seek some definition that remains unclear in your thought process to push your idea as dealt out in Zeitgeist : Addendum ?
How can "perfection" not exist - when it serves as an end by itself that is measurable by comparison from where one's effort began, or it can be an intermittent point in a journey towards some ultimate point ?
Dynamism is a state of flux, as in the all human activities that include all kinds of processes in whatever field that you can think of.
Your own concession that "utopia" here refers to an improved state of a dynamic society - brings you back to a position that you had earlier decline to be at.
Seriously, how many prevailing definitions can you offer for the simple word "utopia" ?
Bayer is a reputable multi-national corporation with global operations in several continents as well as in this Little Red Dot.
If it really happened it would have hit the headlines for the magnitude of the scandal.
Unless there is more certainty in the facts with verifiable sources that allow the news reporters something to chew onto, they will not want to be led on a wild goose chase.
This is surely and only to be expected from Singapore news reporters who are shackled by the PAP appointee sitting at different levels of SPH.
I am not so certain about these reports, as about one month ago - I had come across one report of an Israeli lab operating in Mexico, or New Mexico in the USA, which had been experimenting with variations of a virus that resembled the H1N1 virus so as to develop a vaccine.
The vaccine was tested on a live volunteer after FDA approval was received, but somehow the volunteer was allowed to leave the confines of the lab, and he walked out of the facility never to be found despite the best efforts made to track him down.
About three weeks later, they received news that the volunteer had died and that there was an outbreak of the disease that carried the familiar and typical symptoms,
Records were hurriedly destroyed, and all kept silent as they watched events unfold across North America.
Somehow, no matter what I did, I simply could not return to retrieve this article.
If money is no longer required, and if all necessities of life are provided without any cost to anyone - who pays for the development, manufacture or production, and distribution of these necessities ?
If all necessities of life are provided at no cost and without any employment needed - is there any use for the Homo Sapien physical or mental input ?
Is the Homo Sapien to fulfill the remaining task left in enjoying procreation ?
Call it what you like - conditioning or any other term - is there finally going to be "a free lunch" afterall ?
Something sinister here signal the cynical logic that nothing makes sense.
Conditioning is only one part of the Human Mind - as there are the other parts that are innate in one's instincts as planted into our DNA.
While the behaviourial part can be modified, taught, and conditioned, there are other parts that are instinctive or intuitional.
How does a newborn child instinctively know how to "use" the mother's nipples - by drawing on the nipples instead of suckling, or chew, or blow ?
How does a newborn child instinctively know how to differentiate the care giver from its own mother and father ?
The typical Human Reaction to controversies such as Zeitgeist Addendum is due to the human intelligence to be cautious in unfamiliar territory.
Is such an attitude a result of conditioning, or circumspect in one's judgement due to experience or innate in one's level of common sense ?
The fact that there are people suffering around the globe due to famine, drought, diseases is largely due to the imbalance in the distribution of talent, intelligence, skills, knowledge, and perhaps level of sophistication in the society, in education, technology and finance.
In part, such misery exist due to the inability of the backward society or community to cope and keep pace with the progress made by other parallel societies or communities - (as in the previous Lost Tribe analogy).
If the money is not going to be replaced as you have so emphatically said, is there any need to think about the impact of removing the monetary system on our world - whether holistically or otherwise ?
Seriously do you believe that there can be a World where there is no concepts of nationality, race, color, religion - and where politics, education, law is no longer necessary, - and there are no class of rulers and ruled, no castes, no poverty, no wealth, - no need to spend on weapons, defenses, as there will be no wars, no quarrels, and all things are in total equilibrium ?
Who makes the decisions to produce what, who gets first delivery, who gets what proportions in weight or volume, who gets the choiciest or the worst parts ?
Who is in control ?
With the Homo Sapiens no longer required to work for money or personal profit - as all necessities will be provided, no need to learn or to be educated as this will open to new forms of conditioning,
Are Homo Sapiens to be held to ransom by technology, or held to ransom to those who created the technologies that this society had to depend on ?
This is a repeat of the Animal Farm in a future settings that resemble Orwellian 1984.
You are right when you said that "utopia" only exists a state of mind because thats the only place the term can exist. My definition of "an improved state of a dynamic society" refers to a world where money has been abolished as an outdated tool of exchange. I did not equate it as "utopia", as I said in the next sentence that using it in that context would be wrong. Ultimately, "utopia" has no definitions that corresponds to reality. It only exists in the realm of the mind. I only used it so that you might be able to understand it better.
Again, you are right, this is about semantics. Because of the inaccuracies in our language such as the labelling of unfamiliar issues (communism, socialism, anarchism), we tend to get into various conflicts simply due to unclear communication. When a term like "utopia" or "democracy" has different meanings to different people, how can communication between the two be clear? That was why I initially did not want to use the term "utopia".
I'm sure if incidents like this are publicised, questions raised about this would lead to more revealing revelations about the origins of Swine Flu and the pharmaceutical industry (Think Who Benefits?) which might led to the erosion of public confidence in taking poison in order to solve health problems. Did you see my unpublished letter to the ST?
Most articles about the 2006 incident seems to have disappeared down the memory hole. But on Wikipedia, it seems that past cases of HIV-contaminated material have occured before.
The incident you were referring to about the accident in Mexico is different from the one I am talking about. What Baxter did was dangerously close to unleashing a pandemic and yet, no actions were taken against them and they're producing the vaccine under the auspics of the WHO. Again, in the event of a pandemic, think who benefits.
The problem of how do we occupy our time can be summed up here:
Rather than being a wage slave that is forced to enage in repetitive tasks that require less than a billionth of a person's brain power just for the sake of earning money to survive on, a world without money would free the creativity and passions of people round the world. If people did what they really enjoyed doing, without the distorting notion of a supervisor or boss having to ensure things got done, society would be more developed without the conflict-promoting us against them mentality.
Yes, your apprehensions of a "free lunch" and "What's the catch?" reflects the conditioning of our society. Your argument that people would become idle and indulge in carnal pleasures does not have any bearing on society. How much do we know about the oceans, or about space? What about continual progress in the technology that would improve the state of society? You are trapped in the mentality that this would be "utopia" and that nothing can be improved anymore. I want to make this clear, this is NOT a perfect world, just one substantially better and more humane than the present one.
While I agree there are genetic tendencies in our behaviour, they are separate from human behaviour which is influenced by our environment. A baby with Arab genetics would behave like a Jew if brought up in a Jewish community. He would speak Hebrew and be inculcated with the traditions and behaviour of his community. In this way, the apathetic way we treat other human beings, the selfishness and uncharitable behaviour of society can only be traced back to the influence of our environment (culture) moulded by the monetary system. Why should someone spend the money that he or she worked so hard to obtain to benefit someone else?
It is perfectly alright to be hesitant about unfamiliar issues, but another thing to label it as something vaguely similar and reject based on that inaccurate label (just like people mostly label this concept as communism). The key is to maintain an open mind, ready to accept new information when it makes sense, though this would be relatively speaking. The problem with society, as you have demonstrated, is that being wrong, having to change one's mind is associated with being inferior, having an "empty mind that needs filling" when in fact being wrong allows an individual to be elevated to a higher level of understanding. I don't blame you for having this mentality, its the indoctrination of the educational system.
I agree that the "the imbalance in the distribution of talent, intelligence, skills, knowledge, and perhaps level of sophistication in the society, in education, technology and finance" is causing suffering in many places round the world. But if people like us, living in so-called developed countries are able to enjoy a relatively comfortable life, why shouldnt the means to achieve this be shared with those suffering? Its not that the world lacks the means, as I've said many times, we have the resources and capability to create a better world, just that some groups of people lack MONEY. That is why money has such a paralysing influence on human progress. Moreover, it isnt as simplistic as that. What did you think about the part on the Economic Hitmen in Zeitgeist Addendum? Are those issues being raised in the mainstream media?
Yes, I believe such a world is within our grasp, just that you probably think it is "utopia". All those ideologies you mentioned have completely no bearing on survival. They are imaginary constructs that only exist in the mind. You have to depart from the competitive mentality of who gets first and the best because there will be no distinctions in a world without money. I would like to refer you to http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/The%20Zeitgeist%20Movement.pdf to get a better understanding of the movement and its tenets.
The reason why most, if not all, futuristic portrayals of our world are dark and dystopic, is because we are projecting our own flawed society into that future. If the fundamental social structure remains the same, then nothing will change even if technology becomes even more advanced. Similarly, movies constantly portray A.I as aggressive beings that condition people to reject the same technology that was supposed to free them from work. Its just that we are projecting our own aggressiveness onto our depiction of A.I, which has completely no bearing on reality.
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
You are right when you said that "utopia" only exists a state of mind because thats the only place the term can exist. My definition of "an improved state of a dynamic society" refers to a world where money has been abolished as an outdated tool of exchange. I did not equate it as "utopia", as I said in the next sentence that using it in that context would be wrong. Ultimately, "utopia" has no definitions that corresponds to reality. It only exists in the realm of the mind. I only used it so that you might be able to understand it better.
Again, you are right, this is about semantics. Because of the inaccuracies in our language such as the labelling of unfamiliar issues (communism, socialism, anarchism), we tend to get into various conflicts simply due to unclear communication. When a term like "utopia" or "democracy" has different meanings to different people, how can communication between the two be clear? That was why I initially did not want to use the term "utopia".
Conflicts can be avoided when the intended meanings of the preferred Words are clearly defined, and even as it is tedious to do so - in some important circumstances, it is imperative for such preliminaries to be performed with diligence.
Unfortunately, there are some key words that some organisations prefer not to breathe nor wish to hear, as it will hinder the serious efforts in building and shaping the opinions to follow certain preferred directions - that any negative connotations or associations will simply derail the ongoing efforts.
I'm sure if incidents like this are publicised, questions raised about this would lead to more revealing revelations about the origins of Swine Flu and the pharmaceutical industry (Think Who Benefits?) which might led to the erosion of public confidence in taking poison in order to solve health problems. Did you see my unpublished letter to the ST?
Most articles about the 2006 incident seems to have disappeared down the memory hole. But on Wikipedia, it seems that past cases of HIV-contaminated material have occured before.
The incident you were referring to about the accident in Mexico is different from the one I am talking about. What Baxter did was dangerously close to unleashing a pandemic and yet, no actions were taken against them and they're producing the vaccine under the auspics of the WHO. Again, in the event of a pandemic, think who benefits.
On reviewing these alarming events, we should not be too surprised to these shocking incidences - as there have been instances even in Singapore where the Blood Bank had inadvertently taken tainted blood from donors who did not know of their medical condition, or that they had wilfully not declared their condition when donating their blood.
There have also been many conspiracy theories - some of which are real and some remain speculative - we will need diligent investigators such as the investigative news reporters to ferret out the substantive proof to slam the door on the wrongdoers.
The problem of how do we occupy our time can be summed up here:
Rather than being a wage slave that is forced to enage in repetitive tasks that require less than a billionth of a person's brain power just for the sake of earning money to survive on, a world without money would free the creativity and passions of people round the world. If people did what they really enjoyed doing, without the distorting notion of a supervisor or boss having to ensure things got done, society would be more developed without the conflict-promoting us against them mentality.
Seriously, I have no problems handling any amount of free time, and will be only too happy for someone to takeover all my work, make all my decisions, bring the food and all necessities to me, think and act for me - while I indulge in pure ecstatic pro-creativity in all artistic and hedonistic forms.
But is the problem about "what to do with all the Free Time" - when we are no longer the wage slave according to the Zeitgeist : Addendum ?
(This line of thought continue to develop.....)
Yes, your apprehensions of a "free lunch" and "What's the catch?" reflects the conditioning of our society. Your argument that people would become idle and indulge in carnal pleasures does not have any bearing on society. How much do we know about the oceans, or about space? What about continual progress in the technology that would improve the state of society? You are trapped in the mentality that this would be "utopia" and that nothing can be improved anymore. I want to make this clear, this is NOT a perfect world, just one substantially better and more humane than the present one.
My argument was based on the preceding statements that came from your input as stated :- "Nothing is going to replace money. It will be a world where the necessities of life are provided without any cost to anyone because of technologically-created abundance and also a result of technological unemployment- another key concept presented".
My apprehension is based on the premise offered that all necessities of life are provided without any cost to anyone - which is a result of technologically created abundance that will also result in our technological unemployemnt !!
My concern is not that we have too much time, nor of our being unemployed by what your technology can do to us.
There is a big hole from which this "too-good-to-be-true" feeling is flowing from; and it has nothing to do with my present conditioning to be suspicious of all the "too-good-to-be-true deals" - which I prefer to identify as an innate caution in my human genesis.
(This line of thought continue to develop.....)
While I agree there are genetic tendencies in our behaviour, they are separate from human behaviour which is influenced by our environment. A baby with Arab genetics would behave like a Jew if brought up in a Jewish community. He would speak Hebrew and be inculcated with the traditions and behaviour of his community. In this way, the apathetic way we treat other human beings, the selfishness and uncharitable behaviour of society can only be traced back to the influence of our environment (culture) moulded by the monetary system. Why should someone spend the money that he or she worked so hard to obtain to benefit someone else?
Are you not aware of the tremendous outpouring of donations from the community in times of crisis faced by those from within the community, as well as the external communities outside of national borders ?
While it is correct in your statements that the environment can condition human behaviour to react negatively, there are also the positive influences in the communal and social values that reinforces and encourages the innate human goodness in every Homo Sapien.
On a sidenote - I am concern in the persistent and consistent emphasis in the negative address of the present compared to what Zeitgeist can offer.
(This line of thought continue to develop.....)
It is perfectly alright to be hesitant about unfamiliar issues, but another thing to label it as something vaguely similar and reject based on that inaccurate label (just like people mostly label this concept as communism). The key is to maintain an open mind, ready to accept new information when it makes sense, though this would be relatively speaking. The problem with society, as you have demonstrated, is that being wrong, having to change one's mind is associated with being inferior, having an "empty mind that needs filling" when in fact being wrong allows an individual to be elevated to a higher level of understanding. I don't blame you for having this mentality, its the indoctrination of the educational system.
Unfortunately or fortunately, I view the offer for Zeitgeist:Addendum as an Alternative to the present status quo of Human Development - as being an altruistic ideology that seem to have absorbed parts of the philosophy or ideological principles from communism, socialism, environmentalism, technocratism, democracy, capitalism.
With all its omni-completeness - what else are we left with that prevent the Zeigeist : Addendum to become politically acceptable for implementation ?
(This line of thought continue to develop.....)
I agree that the "the imbalance in the distribution of talent, intelligence, skills, knowledge, and perhaps level of sophistication in the society, in education, technology and finance" is causing suffering in many places round the world. But if people like us, living in so-called developed countries are able to enjoy a relatively comfortable life, why shouldnt the means to achieve this be shared with those suffering? Its not that the world lacks the means, as I've said many times, we have the resources and capability to create a better world, just that some groups of people lack MONEY. That is why money has such a paralysing influence on human progress. Moreover, it isnt as simplistic as that. What did you think about the part on the Economic Hitmen in Zeitgeist Addendum? Are those issues being raised in the mainstream media?
Are we - (all the nations on this globe - government and private) - not sharing with the less fortunate who are living in sheer misery and negligence around the globe ?
With or without money, the standards of poverty remains in isolated communities - how can the poorer communities be helped ?
With the beliefs in the absolute sovereignty of nations and its governments, and the required respects for such principles of sovereignties - how can help be given to those who decline such help or do not allow such help to be received ?
(This line of thought continue to develop.....)
Yes, I believe such a world is within our grasp, just that you probably think it is "utopia". All those ideologies you mentioned have completely no bearing on survival. They are imaginary constructs that only exist in the mind. You have to depart from the competitive mentality of who gets first and the best because there will be no distinctions in a world without money. I would like to refer you to http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/The%20Zeitgeist%20Movement.pdf to get a better understanding of the movement and its tenets.
Even without the name calling involved, without the imaginery constructs forming barriers, without the prejudices in the finite emotions and value systems - what is preventing the concept of Zeitgeist : Addendum from getting more acceptance ?
(This line of thought continue to develop.....)
The reason why most, if not all, futuristic portrayals of our world are dark and dystopic, is because we are projecting our own flawed society into that future. If the fundamental social structure remains the same, then nothing will change even if technology becomes even more advanced. Similarly, movies constantly portray A.I as aggressive beings that condition people to reject the same technology that was supposed to free them from work. Its just that we are projecting our own aggressiveness onto our depiction of A.I, which has completely no bearing on reality.
If the future is as bright as it is offered by any ideologies, how does one place impediments to view it in dark forms ?
The fact that the ideologies propounded by Zeitgeist : Addendum remains incomplete in its offering has lend itself to be viewed with reservations, and even suspicion.
The veil of caution that has not been lifted is due to the fact that in a New Form of Living - (for want of a better term) - offered by Zeitgeist:Addendum that is without all the human negativitity characterised as hunger, lawlessness, destructions, wars, passions, emotions; due to the fulfillment from the abundance in all the required necessities made available without any human effort as a result of technological advancements and discoveries achieved with the ultimate result of gaining total equilibrium in the finite resources of nature with the needs of the Homo Sapien - one big question remains.
Who or what form "the Center" over us - The Homo Sapiens ?
You have offered ideas in how to occupy the time and freedom that have been made possible by all the enticing benefits offered with the successful implementation of the ideologies of Zeitgeist : Addendum - but the nub of the concerns remains without any clarity in :-
who is the ultimate beneficiary of a total surrender to Zeitgeist : Addendum ?
Will the community of Homo Sapiens be the ultimate beneficiary, or could the smart holder and creator of technology or technologies be the ultimate beneficiary in gaining total control of the World ?
It will be easy for a community of intelligent "developers of technologies" to takeover the world, since every known social order has surrendered and subscribed to all the demands as required of Zeitgeist:Addendum .
This offers itself to a new form of total conquest gained from seducing everyone with the peaceful and soft objectives of total equilibrium of Man and Nature.
The total conquest can only succeed with every known political, financial, economic, commercial, production, defense systems or mechanism - and all human endeavors that can create negatively influence - to be dropped or dismantled in order for the new ideologies of Zeitgeist : Addendum to succeed.
It brings us back to the old days of the warring states of China, when for a conquering King to be assured of total success of his rule, he must obtain the total loyalty from the conquered subjects - by ruthlessly demanding total abandonment of the old ways that can only be achieved by executing the old leadership structures and systems, and subjugating the conquered community to be unthinking slaves to a new order.
Call it conditioning if you like - my view is that looking at the benefits that Zeitgeist : Addendum is like looking at the vast schools of fishes available on the surface of an ocean that offers itself as tempting food resources in abundance.
However, the unknown parts of Zeitgeist:Addendum is like attempting to peer into the darkest and deepest part of the ocean known to man, and still one cannot fathom the mysteries that lurk deeper in the deepest part of the unknown - as like the Ocean, it will not or is unable to reveal its true depth.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
Conflicts can be avoided when the intended meanings of the preferred Words are clearly defined, and even as it is tedious to do so - in some important circumstances, it is imperative for such preliminaries to be performed with diligence.
Unfortunately, there are some key words that some organisations prefer not to breathe nor wish to hear, as it will hinder the serious efforts in building and shaping the opinions to follow certain preferred directions - that any negative connotations or associations will simply derail the ongoing efforts.
On reviewing these alarming events, we should not be too surprised to these shocking incidences - as there have been instances even in Singapore where the Blood Bank had inadvertently taken tainted blood from donors who did not know of their medical condition, or that they had wilfully not declared their condition when donating their blood.
There have also been many conspiracy theories - some of which are real and some remain speculative - we will need diligent investigators such as the investigative news reporters to ferret out the substantive proof to slam the door on the wrongdoers.
Seriously, I have no problems handling any amount of free time, and will be only too happy for someone to takeover all my work, make all my decisions, bring the food and all necessities to me, think and act for me - while I indulge in pure ecstatic pro-creativity in all artistic and hedonistic forms.
But is the problem about "what to do with all the Free Time" - when we are no longer the wage slave according to the Zeitgeist : Addendum ?
(This line of thought continue to develop.....)
My argument was based on the preceding statements that came from your input as stated :- "Nothing is going to replace money. It will be a world where the necessities of life are provided without any cost to anyone because of technologically-created abundance and also a result of technological unemployment- another key concept presented".
My apprehension is based on the premise offered that all necessities of life are provided without any cost to anyone - which is a result of technologically created abundance that will also result in our technological unemployemnt !!
My concern is not that we have too much time, nor of our being unemployed by what your technology can do to us.
There is a big hole from which this "too-good-to-be-true" feeling is flowing from; and it has nothing to do with my present conditioning to be suspicious of all the "too-good-to-be-true deals" - which I prefer to identify as an innate caution in my human genesis.
(This line of thought continue to develop.....)
Are you not aware of the tremendous outpouring of donations from the community in times of crisis faced by those from within the community, as well as the external communities outside of national borders ?
While it is correct in your statements that the environment can condition human behaviour to react negatively, there are also the positive influences in the communal and social values that reinforces and encourages the innate human goodness in every Homo Sapien.
On a sidenote - I am concern in the persistent and consistent emphasis in the negative address of the present compared to what Zeitgeist can offer.
(This line of thought continue to develop.....)
Unfortunately or fortunately, I view the offer for Zeitgeist:Addendum as an Alternative to the present status quo of Human Development - as being an altruistic ideology that seem to have absorbed parts of the philosophy or ideological principles from communism, socialism, environmentalism, technocratism, democracy, capitalism.
With all its omni-completeness - what else are we left with that prevent the Zeigeist : Addendum to become politically acceptable for implementation ?
(This line of thought continue to develop.....)
Are we - (all the nations on this globe - government and private) - not sharing with the less fortunate who are living in sheer misery and negligence around the globe ?
With or without money, the standards of poverty remains in isolated communities - how can the poorer communities be helped ?
With the beliefs in the absolute sovereignty of nations and its governments, and the required respects for such principles of sovereignties - how can help be given to those who decline such help or do not allow such help to be received ?
(This line of thought continue to develop.....)
Even without the name calling involved, without the imaginery constructs forming barriers, without the prejudices in the finite emotions and value systems - what is preventing the concept of Zeitgeist : Addendum from getting more acceptance ?
(This line of thought continue to develop.....)
If the future is as bright as it is offered by any ideologies, how does one place impediments to view it in dark forms ?
The fact that the ideologies propounded by Zeitgeist : Addendum remains incomplete in its offering has lend itself to be viewed with reservations, and even suspicion.
The veil of caution that has not been lifted is due to the fact that in a New Form of Living - (for want of a better term) - offered by Zeitgeist:Addendum that is without all the human negativitity characterised as hunger, lawlessness, destructions, wars, passions, emotions; due to the fulfillment from the abundance in all the required necessities made available without any human effort as a result of technological advancements and discoveries achieved with the ultimate result of gaining total equilibrium in the finite resources of nature with the needs of the Homo Sapien - one big question remains.
Who or what form "the Center" over us - The Homo Sapiens ?
You have offered ideas in how to occupy the time and freedom that have been made possible by all the enticing benefits offered with the successful implementation of the ideologies of Zeitgeist : Addendum - but the nub of the concerns remains without any clarity in :-
who is the ultimate beneficiary of a total surrender to Zeitgeist : Addendum ?
Will the community of Homo Sapiens be the ultimate beneficiary, or could the smart holder and creator of technology or technologies be the ultimate beneficiary in gaining total control of the World ?
It will be easy for a community of intelligent "developers of technologies" to takeover the world, since every known social order has surrendered and subscribed to all the demands as required of Zeitgeist:Addendum .
This offers itself to a new form of total conquest gained from seducing everyone with the peaceful and soft objectives of total equilibrium of Man and Nature.
The total conquest can only succeed with every known political, financial, economic, commercial, production, defense systems or mechanism - and all human endeavors that can create negatively influence - to be dropped or dismantled in order for the new ideologies of Zeitgeist : Addendum to succeed.
It brings us back to the old days of the warring states of China, when for a conquering King to be assured of total success of his rule, he must obtain the total loyalty from the conquered subjects - by ruthlessly demanding total abandonment of the old ways that can only be achieved by executing the old leadership structures and systems, and subjugating the conquered community to be unthinking slaves to a new order.
Call it conditioning if you like - my view is that looking at the benefits that Zeitgeist : Addendum is like looking at the vast schools of fishes available on the surface of an ocean that offers itself as tempting food resources in abundance.
However, the unknown parts of Zeitgeist:Addendum is like attempting to peer into the darkest and deepest part of the ocean known to man, and still one cannot fathom the mysteries that lurk deeper in the deepest part of the unknown - as like the Ocean, it will not or is unable to reveal its true depth.
aiyo,..headache,,...take panadol first.. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
Conflicts can be avoided when the intended meanings of the preferred Words are clearly defined, and even as it is tedious to do so - in some important circumstances, it is imperative for such preliminaries to be performed with diligence.
Unfortunately, there are some key words that some organisations prefer not to breathe nor wish to hear, as it will hinder the serious efforts in building and shaping the opinions to follow certain preferred directions - that any negative connotations or associations will simply derail the ongoing efforts.
On reviewing these alarming events, we should not be too surprised to these shocking incidences - as there have been instances even in Singapore where the Blood Bank had inadvertently taken tainted blood from donors who did not know of their medical condition, or that they had wilfully not declared their condition when donating their blood.
There have also been many conspiracy theories - some of which are real and some remain speculative - we will need diligent investigators such as the investigative news reporters to ferret out the substantive proof to slam the door on the wrongdoers.
Seriously, I have no problems handling any amount of free time, and will be only too happy for someone to takeover all my work, make all my decisions, bring the food and all necessities to me, think and act for me - while I indulge in pure ecstatic pro-creativity in all artistic and hedonistic forms.
But is the problem about "what to do with all the Free Time" - when we are no longer the wage slave according to the Zeitgeist : Addendum ?
(This line of thought continue to develop.....)
My argument was based on the preceding statements that came from your input as stated :- "Nothing is going to replace money. It will be a world where the necessities of life are provided without any cost to anyone because of technologically-created abundance and also a result of technological unemployment- another key concept presented".
My apprehension is based on the premise offered that all necessities of life are provided without any cost to anyone - which is a result of technologically created abundance that will also result in our technological unemployemnt !!
My concern is not that we have too much time, nor of our being unemployed by what your technology can do to us.
There is a big hole from which this "too-good-to-be-true" feeling is flowing from; and it has nothing to do with my present conditioning to be suspicious of all the "too-good-to-be-true deals" - which I prefer to identify as an innate caution in my human genesis.
(This line of thought continue to develop.....)
Are you not aware of the tremendous outpouring of donations from the community in times of crisis faced by those from within the community, as well as the external communities outside of national borders ?
While it is correct in your statements that the environment can condition human behaviour to react negatively, there are also the positive influences in the communal and social values that reinforces and encourages the innate human goodness in every Homo Sapien.
On a sidenote - I am concern in the persistent and consistent emphasis in the negative address of the present compared to what Zeitgeist can offer.
(This line of thought continue to develop.....)
Unfortunately or fortunately, I view the offer for Zeitgeist:Addendum as an Alternative to the present status quo of Human Development - as being an altruistic ideology that seem to have absorbed parts of the philosophy or ideological principles from communism, socialism, environmentalism, technocratism, democracy, capitalism.
With all its omni-completeness - what else are we left with that prevent the Zeigeist : Addendum to become politically acceptable for implementation ?
(This line of thought continue to develop.....)
Are we - (all the nations on this globe - government and private) - not sharing with the less fortunate who are living in sheer misery and negligence around the globe ?
With or without money, the standards of poverty remains in isolated communities - how can the poorer communities be helped ?
With the beliefs in the absolute sovereignty of nations and its governments, and the required respects for such principles of sovereignties - how can help be given to those who decline such help or do not allow such help to be received ?
(This line of thought continue to develop.....)
Even without the name calling involved, without the imaginery constructs forming barriers, without the prejudices in the finite emotions and value systems - what is preventing the concept of Zeitgeist : Addendum from getting more acceptance ?
(This line of thought continue to develop.....)
If the future is as bright as it is offered by any ideologies, how does one place impediments to view it in dark forms ?
The fact that the ideologies propounded by Zeitgeist : Addendum remains incomplete in its offering has lend itself to be viewed with reservations, and even suspicion.
The veil of caution that has not been lifted is due to the fact that in a New Form of Living - (for want of a better term) - offered by Zeitgeist:Addendum that is without all the human negativitity characterised as hunger, lawlessness, destructions, wars, passions, emotions; due to the fulfillment from the abundance in all the required necessities made available without any human effort as a result of technological advancements and discoveries achieved with the ultimate result of gaining total equilibrium in the finite resources of nature with the needs of the Homo Sapien - one big question remains.
Who or what form "the Center" over us - The Homo Sapiens ?
You have offered ideas in how to occupy the time and freedom that have been made possible by all the enticing benefits offered with the successful implementation of the ideologies of Zeitgeist : Addendum - but the nub of the concerns remains without any clarity in :-
who is the ultimate beneficiary of a total surrender to Zeitgeist : Addendum ?
Will the community of Homo Sapiens be the ultimate beneficiary, or could the smart holder and creator of technology or technologies be the ultimate beneficiary in gaining total control of the World ?
It will be easy for a community of intelligent "developers of technologies" to takeover the world, since every known social order has surrendered and subscribed to all the demands as required of Zeitgeist:Addendum .
This offers itself to a new form of total conquest gained from seducing everyone with the peaceful and soft objectives of total equilibrium of Man and Nature.
The total conquest can only succeed with every known political, financial, economic, commercial, production, defense systems or mechanism - and all human endeavors that can create negatively influence - to be dropped or dismantled in order for the new ideologies of Zeitgeist : Addendum to succeed.
It brings us back to the old days of the warring states of China, when for a conquering King to be assured of total success of his rule, he must obtain the total loyalty from the conquered subjects - by ruthlessly demanding total abandonment of the old ways that can only be achieved by executing the old leadership structures and systems, and subjugating the conquered community to be unthinking slaves to a new order.
Call it conditioning if you like - my view is that looking at the benefits that Zeitgeist : Addendum is like looking at the vast schools of fishes available on the surface of an ocean that offers itself as tempting food resources in abundance.
However, the unknown parts of Zeitgeist:Addendum is like attempting to peer into the darkest and deepest part of the ocean known to man, and still one cannot fathom the mysteries that lurk deeper in the deepest part of the unknown - as like the Ocean, it will not or is unable to reveal its true depth.
So you would rather think of the Baxter and Bayer contamination incidents as "conspiracy theories" (meaning they never took place) because they werent publicised?
Fifty years ago, scientists were talking about how technology would create an age of abundance and how it would be the emancipation proclaimation for Humanity. Sadly, that never took place because our social system is not designed to do that, it is designed to pertetuate the establishment and to promote scarcity. It promotes a culture that rewards and idolises the self-centered pursuit of profitrather than promoting cooperation and social progress.
Rather than conclude that people in such a society would idle their time away, think about how great scientists like Newton, Tesla and Einstein pursued their interests without a thought for monetary gain. That would be the purpose for society. Not having to waste lives doing meaningless and mundane jobs and having the opportunity to maximise the human potential for the betterment of society.
I acknowledge that despite the corruption that the monetary system breeds, there is still a relatively strong spirit of volunteerism in the world which is helping to alleviate suffering. However, that cannot provide a concrete solution to our problems. After decades of so-called globalisation where there is said to be more prosperity, poverty, hunger, suffering and unnecessary death still abound.As Bertrand Russell wrote in The Impact of Science on Society (1952), "So long as the rulers are comfortable, what reason have they to improve the lot of their serfs?"
Its hard to believe that such suffering is intentional, but the fact remains that the suffering in the Third World is the result of western policies. We are not sharing with the poorer communities. How many people would know that their chocolate is made by children who cannot go to school or even tasted chocolate in their life? In this documentary called The Great African Scandle, what t akes place theoretically is vastly different from the situation on the ground. In Ghana, subsidies on indigenous rice production are removed by the WB/ IMF so that a market can be created for subsidised (up to 72%) western rice. We have FairTrade, one might add. But the reality is that in Ghana, FairTrade cooperatives only receive the FairTrade price for 3% of their cocao, which are then mixed in with other cocao which may have been harvested with child labourers. While many Third World countries may have their political independence,they are still shackled by the double standards of the western-oriented global economy.
Rather than blame the WB/ IMF or the various corporations, it must be recognised that it is the system that compells individuals to make policies that benefit them and causes people to suffer from those same decisions. Why would corporations genuinely fork out money to develop the same communities whose exploitation is profiting them? When there is money to be made off the marketing of the necessities of life such as clean food and water, profits usually take precedence over ethics. Its difficult to mix profits and ethics in the system we are living in.
I agree that it would be almost impossible to implement TVP with the notions of sovereignty today. Also, imagine such a city of abundance where technology is used to free people from labour, separated (walled off) from the present world. Naturally, when crisises hit, there would be incursions and attacks on that city to forcefully take food, water etc that people outside are deprived off. That is why the key to implementation has to be global unification; to become aware of the superficial divisions that separate one human race.
I would say that the only obstacle is a crisis of ignorance. People are not adequately informed about the current state of technology that we have, they are not informed about the ramifications of a monetary system because we are mostly living in an affluent and developed society that shields us from the suffering elsewhere and we do not understand enough about how our world is influenced and works. Not to mention that TVP is a radical concept which challenges many preconceptions that people have like "thats the way it is", in the sense that they arent willing to challenge the status quo as thats how they've been brought up.
As I've stated before, it is global unification not global governance. There are no "community of intelligent "developers of technologies"". As Newton stated, "If I have seen further, it is only because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." There is not 1 person or group that can claim credit for any invention or concept because all knowledge is accumulated (built on one another) and the credit has to go to that field of knowledge and all its pioneers and developers. Not only does this awareness removes any excuses for any ego association, but it promotes a revolutionary mentality that whatever progress should be implemented in a way that preserves and promotes the human and environmental well-being.
There are no more concepts of hierarchy and domination in such a world because there will not be the incentive for it anymore. Presently, if you are above people in terms of organisational hierarchy, there is the motivation of money, status etc. You are able to force people to do what they do not want to do just so they can survive, which is an extremely barbaric form of social interaction.
You're using a lot of loaded words with many negative connotations like "conquest", "seduce", "takeover" and "dismantled". Why anyone oppose the intelligent management of the Earth's resources in a way that ensures that everyone has abundance through the maximisation of our technology? Why would anyone want to preserve a system that puts a price tag on another human being? There is no force involved, its the evolution of our social system.
The basis of the TVP is not coercion in order to attain its goals, but the coming together with like-minded people who understand that our present social structures are outdated and obsolete and that it needs to be replaced with a better one. Who wouldnt want such a world?
I agree with your metaphor of likening TVP to looking into the oceans. True, it is totally radical, challenges every established structure today and has never been tried. But it offers a much better world and a much better method of solving problems and treating human beings and the environment than the present system can.
That aside, what do you mean by "This line of thought continue to develop...."?
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
So you would rather think of the Baxter and Bayer contamination incidents as "conspiracy theories" (meaning they never took place) because they werent publicised?
My view is that if any such incidents should exist it is due to some accidents and not by purposeful design - as was compared to Singapore's experience with the late discovery of contaminated blood being drawn from donors.
If there is any truth to the Baxter and Bayer contamination - it will have an explosive impact that will be as big as Watergate that brough President Nixon down.
Surely, a rookie reporter from some Western Newspaper would have caught on to this scandalous news ?
Fifty years ago, scientists were talking about how technology would create an age of abundance and how it would be the emancipation proclaimation for Humanity. Sadly, that never took place because our social system is not designed to do that, it is designed to pertetuate the establishment and to promote scarcity. It promotes a culture that rewards and idolises the self-centered pursuit of profitrather than promoting cooperation and social progress.
Share this with MM LKY and his PAP dream of total domination through GIC, Temasek, and the NTUC - each with their stable of sub-units that spread tentacles to stifle all private creativity and enterprise.
Rather than conclude that people in such a society would idle their time away, think about how great scientists like Newton, Tesla and Einstein pursued their interests without a thought for monetary gain. That would be the purpose for society. Not having to waste lives doing meaningless and mundane jobs and having the opportunity to maximise the human potential for the betterment of society.
You have not answered my previous questions - who pays for all the freebies, when no one works ?
I acknowledge that despite the corruption that the monetary system breeds, there is still a relatively strong spirit of volunteerism in the world which is helping to alleviate suffering. However, that cannot provide a concrete solution to our problems. After decades of so-called globalisation where there is said to be more prosperity, poverty, hunger, suffering and unnecessary death still abound.As Bertrand Russell wrote in The Impact of Science on Society (1952), "So long as the rulers are comfortable, what reason have they to improve the lot of their serfs?"
Your last statement maybe disputed by MM LKY - who believed in filling the people's stomach so as to dull their minds.
Can the spirit of altruism solve all the problems of everyone on this globe ?
Its hard to believe that such suffering is intentional, but the fact remains that the suffering in the Third World is the result of western policies. We are not sharing with the poorer communities. How many people would know that their chocolate is made by children who cannot go to school or even tasted chocolate in their life? In this documentary called The Great African Scandle, what t akes place theoretically is vastly different from the situation on the ground. In Ghana, subsidies on indigenous rice production are removed by the WB/ IMF so that a market can be created for subsidised (up to 72%) western rice. We have FairTrade, one might add. But the reality is that in Ghana, FairTrade cooperatives only receive the FairTrade price for 3% of their cocao, which are then mixed in with other cocao which may have been harvested with child labourers. While many Third World countries may have their political independence,they are still shackled by the double standards of the western-oriented global economy.
The World Bank and the IMF is a US creation, and the President of at least one of the organisation has always been a US Citizen, and the other an European from one of the major West European industrialized countries.
Should we be surprised if such scandalous events should take place ?
The supply and distribution chain has always put the primary producer at an unfair disadvantage in terms of the scandalous price for the final product sold compared to the price paid for the primary products.
Rather than blame the WB/ IMF or the various corporations, it must be recognised that it is the system that compells individuals to make policies that benefit them and causes people to suffer from those same decisions. Why would corporations genuinely fork out money to develop the same communities whose exploitation is profiting them? When there is money to be made off the marketing of the necessities of life such as clean food and water, profits usually take precedence over ethics. Its difficult to mix profits and ethics in the system we are living in.
Unfortunately, this is the economic model that the governments have subscribed to for the last few centuries.
Profit remains the most efficient arbiter in determining where human resources should be applied, until a better form will be created that will be acceptable to everyone.
I agree that it would be almost impossible to implement TVP with the notions of sovereignty today. Also, imagine such a city of abundance where technology is used to free people from labour, separated (walled off) from the present world. Naturally, when crisises hit, there would be incursions and attacks on that city to forcefully take food, water etc that people outside are deprived off. That is why the key to implementation has to be global unification; to become aware of the superficial divisions that separate one human race.
What is TVP ?
Can global unification take place when some are still living in the stone age ?
I would say that the only obstacle is a crisis of ignorance. People are not adequately informed about the current state of technology that we have, they are not informed about the ramifications of a monetary system because we are mostly living in an affluent and developed society that shields us from the suffering elsewhere and we do not understand enough about how our world is influenced and works. Not to mention that TVP is a radical concept which challenges many preconceptions that people have like "thats the way it is", in the sense that they arent willing to challenge the status quo as thats how they've been brought up.
Is it a crisis of ignorance, or simply a crisis designed for the benefit of the new technocrats with a more sophisticated model to be sold to the world ?
With the modern homo sapiens, the status quo cannot exist for too long - its creativity and enterprise cannot allow the modern homo sapien to remain static or idle.
As I've stated before, it is global unification not global governance. There are no "community of intelligent "developers of technologies"". As Newton stated, "If I have seen further, it is only because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." There is not 1 person or group that can claim credit for any invention or concept because all knowledge is accumulated (built on one another) and the credit has to go to that field of knowledge and all its pioneers and developers. Not only does this awareness removes any excuses for any ego association, but it promotes a revolutionary mentality that whatever progress should be implemented in a way that preserves and promotes the human and environmental well-being.
There are no more concepts of hierarchy and domination in such a world because there will not be the incentive for it anymore. Presently, if you are above people in terms of organisational hierarchy, there is the motivation of money, status etc. You are able to force people to do what they do not want to do just so they can survive, which is an extremely barbaric form of social interaction.
Can there be no more concepts of hierarchy and domination in your new world as propounded by Zeigeist Addendum ?
Someone has to take on certain roles that require decisions to be made, another to execute, and some other to assess the effectiveness, surely it is not expected for the entire global population to perform the same tasks ?
The one who decides, monitor, manages and the other who does the actual works will require some hierarchical structure of responsibilities for the division of labor.
Can human effort move in any singular co-ordinated direction when there is no structure or system to provide guidance ?
You're using a lot of loaded words with many negative connotations like "conquest", "seduce", "takeover" and "dismantled". Why anyone oppose the intelligent management of the Earth's resources in a way that ensures that everyone has abundance through the maximisation of our technology? Why would anyone want to preserve a system that puts a price tag on another human being? There is no force involved, its the evolution of our social system.
The fact that such words exist is a result of nature's gift for caution.
In any society - whether it is the human one, or that of the animals, insects, warm or cold blooded mammals - there exist always a domineering alpha-unit.
The alpha-unit will always seek to dominate, to lead, and to be the numero uno in the order of things in its group.
It is in nature's order for such an alpha-male or alpha-female to exist, as it serves to protect the continuation and strengthening of its genetic character so as to perpetuate its own breed.
Can a Zeigeist global community survive such natural instincts in every being, or will Zeigeist global community disintegrate over time ?
The basis of the TVP is not coercion in order to attain its goals, but the coming together with like-minded people who understand that our present social structures are outdated and obsolete and that it needs to be replaced with a better one. Who wouldnt want such a world?
I agree with your metaphor of likening TVP to looking into the oceans. True, it is totally radical, challenges every established structure today and has never been tried. But it offers a much better world and a much better method of solving problems and treating human beings and the environment than the present system can.
That aside, what do you mean by "This line of thought continue to develop...."?
As outdated as the present social structure is, it cannot be obsolete - as society is always in a state of flux, and the situation turns static only when domination takes place - in which the dominant few will seek to preserve the status quo in its favor.
Can such status quo last when the homo sapien can never accept a static status quo for too long ?
With the new altruistic society that Zeigeist Addendum is advocating that has so much still being murky as the depths of the deepest ocean, can anyone accept a new uncertain status quo when the present one is bad ?
Will we not be fulfilling the proverbial truth of "jumping out of the pan into the fire" ?
The truism has been to lived with the devil you know, then to deal with a devil that you do not have the slightest knowledge of.
"This line of thought continue to develop...." - had referred to the continuation of the underlying direction of the statement made.
-
aiyo, go buy panadols
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
My view is that if any such incidents should exist it is due to some accidents and not by purposeful design - as was compared to Singapore's experience with the late discovery of contaminated blood being drawn from donors.
If there is any truth to the Baxter and Bayer contamination - it will have an explosive impact that will be as big as Watergate that brough President Nixon down.
Surely, a rookie reporter from some Western Newspaper would have caught on to this scandalous news ?
Share this with MM LKY and his PAP dream of total domination through GIC, Temasek, and the NTUC - each with their stable of sub-units that spread tentacles to stifle all private creativity and enterprise.
You have not answered my previous questions - who pays for all the freebies, when no one works ?
Your last statement maybe disputed by MM LKY - who believed in filling the people's stomach so as to dull their minds.
Can the spirit of altruism solve all the problems of everyone on this globe ?
The World Bank and the IMF is a US creation, and the President of at least one of the organisation has always been a US Citizen, and the other an European from one of the major West European industrialized countries.
Should we be surprised if such scandalous events should take place ?
The supply and distribution chain has always put the primary producer at an unfair disadvantage in terms of the scandalous price for the final product sold compared to the price paid for the primary products.
Unfortunately, this is the economic model that the governments have subscribed to for the last few centuries.
Profit remains the most efficient arbiter in determining where human resources should be applied, until a better form will be created that will be acceptable to everyone.
What is TVP ?
Can global unification take place when some are still living in the stone age ?
Is it a crisis of ignorance, or simply a crisis designed for the benefit of the new technocrats with a more sophisticated model to be sold to the world ?
With the modern homo sapiens, the status quo cannot exist for too long - its creativity and enterprise cannot allow the modern homo sapien to remain static or idle.
Can there be no more concepts of hierarchy and domination in your new world as propounded by Zeigeist Addendum ?
Someone has to take on certain roles that require decisions to be made, another to execute, and some other to assess the effectiveness, surely it is not expected for the entire global population to perform the same tasks ?
The one who decides, monitor, manages and the other who does the actual works will require some hierarchical structure of responsibilities for the division of labor.
Can human effort move in any singular co-ordinated direction when there is no structure or system to provide guidance ?
The fact that such words exist is a result of nature's gift for caution.
In any society - whether it is the human one, or that of the animals, insects, warm or cold blooded mammals - there exist always a domineering alpha-unit.
The alpha-unit will always seek to dominate, to lead, and to be the numero uno in the order of things in its group.
It is in nature's order for such an alpha-male or alpha-female to exist, as it serves to protect the continuation and strengthening of its genetic character so as to perpetuate its own breed.
Can a Zeigeist global community survive such natural instincts in every being, or will Zeigeist global community disintegrate over time ?
As outdated as the present social structure is, it cannot be obsolete - as society is always in a state of flux, and the situation turns static only when domination takes place - in which the dominant few will seek to preserve the status quo in its favor.
Can such status quo last when the homo sapien can never accept a static status quo for too long ?
With the new altruistic society that Zeigeist Addendum is advocating that has so much still being murky as the depths of the deepest ocean, can anyone accept a new uncertain status quo when the present one is bad ?
Will we not be fulfilling the proverbial truth of "jumping out of the pan into the fire" ?
The truism has been to lived with the devil you know, then to deal with a devil that you do not have the slightest knowledge of.
"This line of thought continue to develop...." - had referred to the continuation of the underlying direction of the statement made.
With the information control in the US centralised in the hands of 5 huge corporations, I consider it extremely rare that such incidents even made the news, even if it was not followed up and subsequently dropped into the memory hole. This is what I would expect in an age of corporate interlock between the various industries.
Imagine you are a doctor. You diagnose patients according to their symptoms, results of machine analysis and usually treat them with surgury or medication. Medical care is a technical process. Now, suppose a computer which is updated with all the necessary medical patterns to diagnose and treat patients replaces you, but you still get your salary. How would you like such a life? You would be freed from labour.
Developing on that example, what The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM) advocates is the total removal of money. Free yourself from obsolete principles such as "No such things as free lunches" etc. Technology allows us to automate production to the extent that human labour will not be necessary anymore, and still create an abundance of food, energy and all the amenities of life, eliminating poverty and suffering at no cost because the concept of money is already irrelevant. The question isnt "Who pays?" but "Do we have the resources to do so?"
To quote from Stuart Chase's The Tyranny of Words:
"Principles are not tools by which discoveries are made, for they tend to close the mind against free inquiry. When men observe the world in the light of ideals which they consider sacred and timeless, they tend to develop priests rather than scientists...The principles of Washinton's Farewell Address are still considered sources of wisdom; the methods of [his] physician, however, are no longer studied..."
Although we could create such an advanced world today, the presence of money, creating distortions such as politics, corruption, crime, war- division within one planet, is hindering human progress because of the type of abberant behaviour that such a system promotes. When we live in a world of scarcity and division, there must the type of hierarchy you described. That social system is your frame of reference. It has nothing to do with so-called human 'nature', which is meaningless because the only thing observable is human BEHAVIOUR. While we have space-age technology, our social system and values are still that of the stone-age's. It is this understanding that separates TZM from other social organisations.
The amount of corruption that is manifested in society is merely a symptom of the problem. When our society promotes and rewards the selfish pursuit of profit and self-interest, how can altruism abound within society, although there are small pockets of it? We are victims of culture. If we want to change the type of behaviour that is displayed, we have to first change the environment that we are in.
Take a look at this, this is the kind of values our social system promotes:
Aspiring to be a corrupt official
TVP is The Venus Project (introduced in Zeitgeist Addendum) abbreviated. TZM is the activist arm of TVP.
Isn't what we're seeing in society the result of "a crisis designed for the benefit of the new technocrats with a more sophisticated model to be sold to the world"? Its just that the public does not realise the "technocrat" part of such developments. Look at the state of civil liberties today, how technology is being used as a TOOL, reflecting the kind of environment we are living in, to monitor and datamine huge populations. Look at how technology is being used to create automonous killing machines, improving tools to take another human being's life, how to inflict pain and dominate over others. Its not the technology, I'm sure you would have realised, its our social system.
There will not be any domination or hierarchy in a TVP world. Thats a stone-age mentality. When we could cooperate in a world of abundance, we chose to create a world of scarcity, which introduces an "us against them" mentality creating conflicts born of baseless pride and ego. With the removal of money, politics as we know it would vanish. Instead of the mess that we can politics, we would have a cybernated society. That is not machines ruling over us, not one individual making a decision but decision being arrived at through the Scientific Method with the most advanced tools available. Is there a communist or a capitalistic method to distill water? Is there a democratic or republican method of constructing a building? No, because both examples, just like survival, is a technical process with no need for subjective influences like as politics and ego associations.
With decision-making clouded by politics, money (vested interest), ego/pride, corruption, it is no wonder that the social sciences, if it can be called a science, has always lagged behind the physical sciences. Yes, society is always in a state of flux, that is our scientific knowledge and technology, but our social system has largely remained constant and does not allow us to maximise our technology.
To chose to remain with the unsatisfactory status quo, when an alternative promises a much more fulfilling world, is just closed mindedness. If the present social system is not promoting the human well-being, obviously we should move to a new social structure when we have to do so. The "truism" or "truth" you referred to are meaningless statements for nothing is true (absolutely), what was true a hundred years ago may not be true today.
Just like our social system, our language has been corrupted and is a reflection of the state of our culture. An example would be the word "propaganda". Originally meaning any effort taken to promote a particular belief or doctrine, it has become a kind of "vulgar word", having many negative connotations attached to it. Its not a defence, but a sign of decadence. When we compare the world we live in and the language we use, both are similar. There is always a war on something, war on cancer, war on poverty, war on terror etc. We describe our world in violent and aggressive terms, creating a war-like, defensive mentality. When someone tries to point out someone else's error, it becomes an attack rather an helping that person to improve. In this way, progress is stiffled.
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
With the information control in the US centralised in the hands of 5 huge corporations, I consider it extremely rare that such incidents even made the news, even if it was not followed up and subsequently dropped into the memory hole. This is what I would expect in an age of corporate interlock between the various industries.
Imagine you are a doctor. You diagnose patients according to their symptoms, results of machine analysis and usually treat them with surgury or medication. Medical care is a technical process. Now, suppose a computer which is updated with all the necessary medical patterns to diagnose and treat patients replaces you, but you still get your salary. How would you like such a life? You would be freed from labour.
Developing on that example, what The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM) advocates is the total removal of money. Free yourself from obsolete principles such as "No such things as free lunches" etc. Technology allows us to automate production to the extent that human labour will not be necessary anymore, and still create an abundance of food, energy and all the amenities of life, eliminating poverty and suffering at no cost because the concept of money is already irrelevant. The question isnt "Who pays?" but "Do we have the resources to do so?"
To quote from Stuart Chase's The Tyranny of Words:
"Principles are not tools by which discoveries are made, for they tend to close the mind against free inquiry. When men observe the world in the light of ideals which they consider sacred and timeless, they tend to develop priests rather than scientists...The principles of Washinton's Farewell Address are still considered sources of wisdom; the methods of [his] physician, however, are no longer studied..."
Although we could create such an advanced world today, the presence of money, creating distortions such as politics, corruption, crime, war- division within one planet, is hindering human progress because of the type of abberant behaviour that such a system promotes. When we live in a world of scarcity and division, there must the type of hierarchy you described. That social system is your frame of reference. It has nothing to do with so-called human 'nature', which is meaningless because the only thing observable is human BEHAVIOUR. While we have space-age technology, our social system and values are still that of the stone-age's. It is this understanding that separates TZM from other social organisations.
The amount of corruption that is manifested in society is merely a symptom of the problem. When our society promotes and rewards the selfish pursuit of profit and self-interest, how can altruism abound within society, although there are small pockets of it? We are victims of culture. If we want to change the type of behaviour that is displayed, we have to first change the environment that we are in.
Take a look at this, this is the kind of values our social system promotes:
Aspiring to be a corrupt official
TVP is The Venus Project (introduced in Zeitgeist Addendum) abbreviated. TZM is the activist arm of TVP.
Isn't what we're seeing in society the result of "a crisis designed for the benefit of the new technocrats with a more sophisticated model to be sold to the world"? Its just that the public does not realise the "technocrat" part of such developments. Look at the state of civil liberties today, how technology is being used as a TOOL, reflecting the kind of environment we are living in, to monitor and datamine huge populations. Look at how technology is being used to create automonous killing machines, improving tools to take another human being's life, how to inflict pain and dominate over others. Its not the technology, I'm sure you would have realised, its our social system.
There will not be any domination or hierarchy in a TVP world. Thats a stone-age mentality. When we could cooperate in a world of abundance, we chose to create a world of scarcity, which introduces an "us against them" mentality creating conflicts born of baseless pride and ego. With the removal of money, politics as we know it would vanish. Instead of the mess that we can politics, we would have a cybernated society. That is not machines ruling over us, not one individual making a decision but decision being arrived at through the Scientific Method with the most advanced tools available. Is there a communist or a capitalistic method to distill water? Is there a democratic or republican method of constructing a building? No, because both examples, just like survival, is a technical process with no need for subjective influences like as politics and ego associations.
With decision-making clouded by politics, money (vested interest), ego/pride, corruption, it is no wonder that the social sciences, if it can be called a science, has always lagged behind the physical sciences. Yes, society is always in a state of flux, that is our scientific knowledge and technology, but our social system has largely remained constant and does not allow us to maximise our technology.
To chose to remain with the unsatisfactory status quo, when an alternative promises a much more fulfilling world, is just closed mindedness. If the present social system is not promoting the human well-being, obviously we should move to a new social structure when we have to do so. The "truism" or "truth" you referred to are meaningless statements for nothing is true (absolutely), what was true a hundred years ago may not be true today.
Just like our social system, our language has been corrupted and is a reflection of the state of our culture. An example would be the word "propaganda". Originally meaning any effort taken to promote a particular belief or doctrine, it has become a kind of "vulgar word", having many negative connotations attached to it. Its not a defence, but a sign of decadence. When we compare the world we live in and the language we use, both are similar. There is always a war on something, war on cancer, war on poverty, war on terror etc. We describe our world in violent and aggressive terms, creating a war-like, defensive mentality. When someone tries to point out someone else's error, it becomes an attack rather an helping that person to improve. In this way, progress is stiffled.
That's a form of communism.
Let us create a classless, stateless society. -
Originally posted by angel3070:
That's a form of communism.
Let
us create a classless, stateless society.Is that the only characteristic of "communism"?
What do you mean by "communism"?
Why not you drop the label that creates negative connotations for people and just critique whatever that was stated?
-
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another.
Your political program?
-
Originally posted by angel3070:
Your political program?
So whatever I described matches these tenets of communism as developed by Marx?
By labelling something as "communism", what are you trying to imply about it? Normally, "communism" implies an undesirable, 'evil' idea. Even if you didnt even investigate it thoroughly, using a negative label already helps you reach a conclusion. Thats Orwellian 'crimestop' isnt it?
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
Normally, "communism" implies an undesirable, 'evil' idea.
Not to me at all.
But your rhetoric is communist rhetoric.
In 2003 Chairman Bob Avakian delivered this historic talk in the United States. This is a wide-ranging revolutionary journey. It breaks down the very nature of the society we live in and how humanity has come to a time where a radically different society is possible. Full of heart and soul, humor and seriousness, it will challenge you and set your heart and mind to flight.
We must overthrow the capitalist bourgeoisie financial corporate oligarchy.
-
Originally posted by angel3070:
Not to me at all.
But your rhetoric is communist rhetoric.
And what about it?