ZEITGEIST: Moving Forward.
polycounter lvl 12
ZEITGEIST: MOVING FORWARD
[ame]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&feature=feedu[/ame]
This is the Official Online Release of "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward" by Peter Joseph. [30 subtitles pending]
On Jan. 15th, 2011, "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward" was released theatrically to sold out crowds in 60 countries; 31 languages; 295 cities and 341 Venues. It has been noted as the largest non-profit independent film release in history.
This is a non-commercial work and is available online for free viewing and no restrictions apply to uploading/download/posting/linking - as long as no money is exchanged.
A Free DVD Torrent of the full 2 hr and 42 min film in 30 languages is also made available through the main website [below], with instructions on how one can download and burn the movie to DVD themselves. His other films are also freely available in this format.
On Jan. 15th, 2011, "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward" was released theatrically to sold out crowds in 60 countries; 31 languages; 295 cities and 341 Venues. It has been noted as the largest non-profit independent film release in history.
This is a non-commercial work and is available online for free viewing and no restrictions apply to uploading/download/posting/linking - as long as no money is exchanged.
A Free DVD Torrent of the full 2 hr and 42 min film in 30 languages is also made available through the main website [below], with instructions on how one can download and burn the movie to DVD themselves. His other films are also freely available in this format.
Website:
www.zeitgeistmovingforward.com
www.zeitgeistmovie.com
Release Map:
http://zeitgeistmovingforward.com/zmap
$5 DVD:
http://zeitgeistmovingforward.com/dvd
Movement:
www.thezeitgeistmovement.com
Replies
Watch it guys, then share it with others.
the moneyMen aint going away anytime soon. and they'll cling to their dollars until the last breath. i fear the only way we'll realize anything that resembles the venus project is from the ground up following some near apocalyptic event. and man does that ever suck shit
*
the emotive cutScenes running through the film were awful in my opinion. would've much preferred the doco to stay on the side of reason with the ' facts and figures '. going the way they did felt like some shitty perfume adSpot on tv. i'm sure the exact kind of world the thesis seeks to move away from
The thought of throwing all the money you have in front of the bank just made me think of that one guy who comes in his truck and takes as much as he can, it's just so radical. Not saying it's bad, but there's always that one guy/group who just can't understand change.
The good thing was the image of almost everyone in the major countries rioting, I think it's the only way to start a revolution now. It wont start with just words... we need to take action on a MASSIVE scale, but before that happens we must get educated... and thats what the majority of this world wont comply with... it is slowly changing though, thanks to stuff like this and the stuff daphz posted (thanks).
-Adam Smith's invisible hand has nothing to do with god. It's just dumb to say it does. It's a shorthand to explain natural market dynamics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand
-Not all economists are classicists or Keynesians. Karl Marx is considered an economist, as would anyone talking seriously about how to divide resourced to meet needs (like the person making the video here)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
-Capitalism has some flaws, but designed obsolescence is a pretty minor one. Most people just buy the new version of something before the old one breaks, and they do it because it's better. This is a major driving force in innovation.
-saying "robots can make everything" is a lot easier said than done. 100% clean energy is also hard.
-having a computer run the economy is maybe possible, but it's not clear how it could work. Markets are pretty elegant when it comes to determining how much one thing is worth compared to another. Any computer tasked with trying to find that information would probably end up simulating markets. Having people fill out surveys of what they want would probably provide pretty terrible data to work with.
-"The Elite" are not some shadowy group of old men. They are often 1st or 2nd generation hard working entrepreneurs.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-rise-of-the-new-global-elite/8343/
I think the reality is a lot harder to take. A lot of people are doing the best they know how to, and our society is the result. Maybe some parts have outlived their usefulness, or evolved into something that is harmful to our continued wellbeing, but most people think they are doing the right thing to make the world a better place. Even bankers.
The claim that hunter-gatherer societies had no violence whatsoever is a complete whitewashing of history, just plain ignorant or worse still, willful deception. I'm so sick of the cliche' and inaccurate concept of the "noble savage", which is some weird psycho-cultural byproduct of ancestral guilt for the defeat and subjugation of these peoples.
I'm going to finish watching, because I firmly believe in educating myself, even on topics or viewpoints with which I disagree, but at this stage, I'm not hopeful.
There's some interesting facts and such, mixed with heaps of utter horseshit.
Just like the other 2 films.
Just to be clear on how this process is supposed to work.
When a hypothesis is posed, it is usually written in a paper that needs to be "peer reviewed".
You can't simply talk about the environment economics, or politics, without talking to scientists/economists/specialists in multiple fields that run parallel to that theory BASED ON FACT<<.
Those 'peers' will then ask for changes the wording or addend to the theory so that the hypothesis can fit within their respective fields.
Once the paper is 'Peer Reviewed', it is then published, and can be talked about as it is 'fact'.
The supposed 'facts' and people they interviewed are highly suspect, and questionable as sources.
This film completely lost me when they began talking about Genetics.
We live in a world of finite resources, with (at the moment) an infinitely growing population. Obviously this is a problem, and there is no easy way around it. And though it definitely has its faults, free-market economics at least addresses problems of supply and demand in a more efficient way than pretty much any other system to date. If you have an idea for systematically distributing goods and resources on a global scale in an efficient, productive manner, by all means, share it with the world. But arguing in vague terms that supercomputers will somehow be responsible for resource allocation -- while humans, freed from tedious labor, are able to do as they choose with their free time -- is absurd on many levels.
Our society is complex and has many problems; certainly it can be improved a great deal. I also appreciate that the global, interconnected nature of many issues is overwhelming on an individual basis. We see these things that are wrong in the world, and we want to change them, but we feel powerless. I sympathize with that feeling completely! But throwing the baby out with the bathwater and literally attempting to overhaul the basic tenets of a system that affects almost every person on this planet -- and doing so in a way that seems remarkably ignorant of the actual world in which we live -- is not only far-fetched but impractical.
Want to create a real zeitgeist? Find a good non-profit or charity, like Charity:Water, and donate. Your money will go directly toward giving people clean water for the first time in their lives. I can't imagine a better, or more simple, or more practical cause that will make the world a better place.
Pie in the Sky dream of living in the Star Trek universe. Maybe one day. But not any time soon.
No one said "hunter-gatherer societies had no violence whatsoever", I suggest you watch that part again, but maybe that's where you left off so you didn't quite grasp what they were trying to say. One thing I remember them saying about this topic was that 'there is no written evidence (or something along those lines). Of course there was violence (we are carnivores creatures that hunt in social groups after all) , but it wasn't to this extent... No one is whitewashing history, they're simply stating what has already been written, weather it be right or wrong is a little but late to find out now.
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that this is based on fact JacqueChoi... most of the people speaking in this movie are amazing intellectuals who do this for a living... Take Jacque for example, he invented everything from medical instruments to houses made purely of aluminum (with other amazing traits)... Just a suggestion here, not trying to be an asshole... but you shouldn't try to undermine professors on their own work (unless you work in the same field, then by all means, go nuts ahahah).
I think you missed a big part of what this movie was trying to say. People don't need money to survive, they need clean food, shelter, education, social contact... If money is removed from this equation, that doesn't mean nothing will get done and no one will get cured, the resources are still there.
Which completely ignores the entire field of economics, hence why it's naive.
Money is a medium of exchange. But it does a hell of a lot more than tell you how much to pay for stuff. It's a way for you to vote with your dollars. For you to say that Product-X made by Company-X is better, and therefore should be developed further, than Product-Y made by Company-Y.
Someone comes up with a horseless-carriage. It's expensive, but some people can afford it. They look at it as a whole, and judge it to be superior to the horse&carriage. So they buy it. Essentially vote for it over the competition. Next thing you know, everyone has cars.
For them to ignore what money is, is just ridiculous. To say "yeah, the resources are there" ignores the need for manual labor. Now, I know, the whole robots thing sounds nice. But we're not there yet. And we don't live in a post-scarcity world.
The day I can walk up to my kitchen and say "Tea. Earl gray. Hot.", that's the day all of this becomes feasible.
That day won't come if you don't work for it Bigjohn. You don't need money "to say that Product-X made by Company-X is better", it would be obvious when you use it and compare them together.
Why buy a car to drive around for 20 minutes a day when you can use a high speed train to get there 5x faster, safer, and using less resources? The idea of "some people can afford it" is wrong, thats what they're trying to show you. Jacque said that in the Venus project there will be places where you can borrow whatever you need. You need a camera? Here you go! Take this best camera human can produce, take awesome pictures, upload them to you computer and then return it. Want to use it again? HERE YOU GO, Free of charge! Want to make it better? Join the engineers and design till your brain is out of juice!
What's ridiculous is the fact that we are the smartest things of our known universe and we use our amazing bodies to staple paper together, film people fucking, and all the other nonsense crap. While we cause pollution, famine, hunger, death and slowly bring the earth that sustains us down... It's like telling your mom to go fuck off.
My problem is with how they're planning on getting there. I don't believe their plan is feasible. And I don't think that abandoning money at this point in time is the smartest thing to do.
It isn't the theory that's wrong. It's the reality of it.
I thought the whole point of this was to encourage the empirical process of attempting to falsify hypothesis? The whole point of science is undermining the work of professors, that is why it is anti-dogmatic. If it holds up after everyone has done their best to prove it wrong, it becomes as good as it gets for this moment. Though, it is never, ever, exempt from future revisions.
If your philosophy is above critisism, then you are totalitarian.
I don't think you understand what he's getting at.
There are a finite amount of resources available to company x and company y. company x produces a superior, more efficient product.
Which company should get more resources?
How should it be decided?
How will they be provided?
In the resource based economy jacque is trying to achieve something along these lines :
There would be no company's since there is no money, so no one works to achieve the cheapest thing just so it can be outdated in a couple of years to make profit.
There are going to be departments, all connected throughout the world, the geographical region with the most suitable resources will procude the product needed. That way you save time and also use less resources (not having to ship materials to X country, then they manufacture Y to combine with Z from another country.
If the product can only be made in certain geo locations, then after it had been made it is shipped to whoever is in demand of that product. If the product can be made in many geo locations, then that would be the best way to produce and distribute the product efficiently to the people who need it.
Also the product would be made to the best of their ability. If it would be outdated quickly, updates should be thought of beforehand so we can modify the existing product rather than scrapping it and starting again.
Yes you're right, but you can't say something is "fact" or false without showing the reason why... By all means go ahead state why it is false, or why it wouldn't work, so that one can look at it through another perspective.
Thats why I wrote 'if you know the field'. It not wise to call something horseshit unless you give a reason why. Or at least thats how I look at it.
Whose to say that this wasen't peer-reviewed by many other scientists?
PS. Please don't try to put labels on people man... I really dislike that.
I'm not the smartest of men, and english is not my first lnguage, but I will try to understand what you guys are asking and give the best answer possible.
in the venus world i imagine the resources readily and freely available to any individuals teams or groups that it's obvious have the know how and drive to commit to a project to develop ' solution X '. and when we think of resources as being finite. yes. but in our world i'm sure we would agree that a MASSIVE chunk of finite resources are swallowed up by largely needless efforts ( 1984. the war effort exists simply to consume the products of industry. industry exists simply to consume the minds of the masses with work ). so. resources are finite. but plentiful
this is within the context of the venus world though remember. so. theoretically there'd be no focus ( or idea even entertained ) of a reward system like what might resemble money. so it's trusted that the participants of the project are pretty much doing what they're doing to support the social good. and their ' prize ' if you like is the satisfaction contained within the creative act
( reminds me of that animation thing ' what motivates people ' )
.
Agreed. How would taking away money make it any LESS likely for resources to be swallowed up and wasted?
Without the incentive/penalty of money, how would you regulate waste and non-productivity?
It starts off with the Christ myth being purveyed throughout history,then uses that to catapult into a hypothesis about our current society...
I just so happen to take a class on Religious studies:
So I can without a doubt call a whole wack of horse shit on the entire pretense for that film:
Horus was not born from a virgin. He most certainly was not baptised. He was NOT crucified, nor did he ressurect 3 days later. His birthday was also not on the 25th of December... seeing as they were not tracking time on the traditional lunar calendar.
The film t went and listed a bunch of Gods throughout history that have been born from a virgin, baptized at 30, died and ressurected and was born on the 25th of december.
Dionysus being one of them. The greek god of partying and wine, who was son of ZEUS and Semele(not a virgin mother), who was most definitely not baptized...
What I'm getting at is.. if you're going to make a documentary, and try and push a hypothesis, it's probably not a good idea to start off with a false statement, and base the rest of the film off that false statement.
It's also not good to litter the documentary with other perversions of truth, false facts, and try to present them as truth.... through fancy editing, and completely biased opinions.
Low and behold, I find a website that completely debunks many of the so called 'facts' and quotes presented in these documentaries:
http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/the-zeitgeist-movement/
i would say that money. directly. is the cause of most wasteful enterprise in our world. how many brands wrapped around bottled water do humans require to satisfy the need to drink the contents ?
( which drives us down the very lengthy path of discussion : the need for wants. and the fabrication of choice )
But really though, how can someone decipher 100% of what the ancients hieroglyphs are saying? It's quite easy to misinterpret what they actually meant, and there's always going to be skeptics to say otherwise.
Gotta love the skeptics :poly121:
Maybe, although i happen to know that the "investigative journalist" which they have on is infact unemployed (has been so for many years) and is living in a spare room at his brothers place. He's also taken part in some pretty dodgy documentaries in past. Not saying that he can't be right because of that, it's just that they kind of portray them as something they're not.
Don't know about the others.
Not sure what you mean by "portray as something they're not". He looked like a greasy(haired) investigative journalist to me... lol
I think the fundamental flaws of the monetary system, coupled with the practice of unbridled capitalism are devastatingly destructive forces to the overall well-being of our global human community. Ideological specifics aside, the more people who are critically examining those dominant systems and testing alternative solutions, the better.
Most rational people would agree that change is a constant force acting on present reality. With that as a given, all that's really left for debate is how well humanity will recognise the necessity and adapt to the circumstances of coming changes. Will they be violent and punctuated, or smooth transitions?
That's what I mostly wonder about; how far we have to fall as a species before we either transcend or are destroyed by our dominant culture's distorted, unbalanced sense of what is truly valuable within the human experience. Most ordinary people do have a decent sense of morality and empathy, sometimes overshadowed by ignorance. The potential is always there, but until our dominant cultures reflect global humanitarian values, we're just spinning our wheels as a species.
/hippy-rant
And the side effect being, you'll never win anyone over that way.
I havent seen a single post in this thread that didn't argue for its point? Also the venus project is more of an elborate combination of different ideas for technologies, rather than an exact science on its own, so I don't really see what there is to peer review as such. Besides of course all the ideas of other people that it consists of. Though, I don't really think it is relevant, as we dont really have an oppertunity to completely demolish society, and rebuild it from a clean slate.
What I would like to see is a plan of how to build a economy free society from what we have:
The way I see it, this film paints a lot of pretty pictures of a blissful brotherhood in the future, but it offers no ideas of how to get there.
I weren't labelling anything or anyone. I was merely cautioning that no ideas are sacred, because it's when they are that really bad things happen. Us and them and that whole ordeal.
In the words of Hannah Arendt: The most radical revolutionary will become a rigid conservative the day after the revolution.
TL;DR: It's easy to imagine a better world, fixing the one we have is a lot harder.
This. Especially when you consider that many of the systems that make the world bad -- inequality and oppression and money -- were all instated as fixes to a flawed world, and in many situations are the least of many availible evils.
If you want answers I'm clearly not the best source for you, I suggest you visit the Venus Project website, or better yet I'll give you their number. Call Jacque or Roxanne and ask all the questions you seek.
http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/get-involved/contact
Contact
Address:
21 Valley Lane
Venus, Florida 33960
E-mail: tvp@thevenusproject.com
Telephone: +1 863 465 0321
If you do call them do you mind posting the conversation?
Alright I'm going to try to answer these with the best of my ability.
How you would avoid having administrators exploiting the system, as were seen in the soviet union. No, this is not the exact same kind of socialism, but it is the closest analouge we can draw experience from.
Exploiting the system for what? You have access to everything you would possibly imagine.
How do we make sure that people won't cheat and hoard stuff for themselves? Will we need some sort of rationing card? How will this be monitored and enforced?
There is a central system that will per-calculate everything the population of that city needs. What could you possible gain from hoarding? If people can't understand that we would educate them first. Education plays a massive role in all of this.
Is socio- and psychopathy purely environmental? How can we be sure? Will we still need law enforcement?
We can be sure by testing it rigorously, just like any other theory or fact. About the law enforcement... it does more harm than good now days.
For more questions visit the FAQ, it's going to answer almost everything you want to know. I also suggest reading other valuable information on this website.
http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project-introduction/faq
Please read my post.
Its not at all hard to imagine, its how to get there that is hard.
The theories to solve some of the problems facing are world are all very logical, unfortunately, humans are not.
If we wanted to all do good for each other and live in peace, we could do it now. Circumstances aren't keeping us from utopia, we are.
I do believe that one day we will have an Earth Federation, but we will have to lose a lot before we are ready to embrace it.
"The wise man stops getting sick when he becomes sick of sickness".
If everyone is rich, then nobody is.
Yeah, but, there's a reason it's called the Hobbesian Myth
Is The Venus Project a Utopian society?
The Venus Project is not a Utopian concept. We do not believe in the erroneous notion of a utopian society. There is no such thing. Societies are always in a state of transition. We propose an alternative direction, which addresses the causes of many of our problems. There are no final frontiers for human and technological achievement - it will always undergo change. Even if we can design a society having all of the modifications to improve the lives of people and protect the environment we will still be at the beginning of the next phase. We are always in transition and learning new things.
The survival of any social system ultimately depends upon its ability to allow for appropriate change to improve society as a whole. The patterns we choose determine whether or not there is intelligent life on earth. In closing, to achieve this new social design, it will require much voluntary, unselfish participation for its realization. The future does not depend solely on The Venus Project. We only propose a direction. Our future depends on the decisions we make today.
Sure it's not a hard science, but human greed certainly had it it's place during the fall of communism, along with countless examples of anarchistic societies.
No, Hobbes argued that man in his State of Nature would have a right to everything. This lead him to the notion of Bellum omnium contra omnes, the war against all. Meaning, people would constantly be fighting and killing one another.
Greed doesn't really come into the picture all too much in the Hobbesian view. It's more like he just believes mankind is basically murderous and will kill one another by the nature of what we are.
Therefore he describes the state of anarchy as being total chaos.
But that's a highly dubious claim, one that cannot be proven. And in fact, has been debunked thoroughly since Hobbes' times. So much so that it's now referred to as the Hobbesian Myth. And in fact, when I was introduced to Hobbes, that's how it happened. Through the notion that he was utterly wrong.
Venus Project: society that is always in a state of transition, therefore never perfect. "Even if we can design a society having all of the modifications to improve the lives of people and protect the environment we will still be at the beginning of the next phase. We are always in transition and learning new things."
What am I missing? Please elaborate Bigjohn.
"A utopia (pronounced /juːˈtoʊpiə/) is any society governed by an ideal socio-politico-legal system."
Economics excerpt:
"Particularly in the early 19th century, several utopian ideas arose, often in response to their belief that social disruption was created and caused by the development of commercialism and capitalism. These are often grouped in a greater "utopian socialist" movement, due to their shared characteristics: an egalitarian distribution of goods, frequently with the total abolition of money, and citizens only doing work which they enjoy and which is for the common good, leaving them with ample time for the cultivation of the arts and sciences."
No gods, or kings
Atlas was right.
Alright I understand, but whats bad about an egalitarian distribution of goods and all the rest of it?
Got my definition from google/dictionary.com
Economics. That's what.
There's this notion, especially with stuff like communism/venus, that money in and of itself is evil, and therefore that economics is bullshit somehow. It's not. It's the reason empires collapse. It's how the Soviet Union collapsed, it's how we will collapse.
Economics isn't just some bullshit thing about how to make rich people rich. It cuts right down to basic human behavior. And "projects" like this just completely ignore economics altogether.
And what's worse is that this dismissal of economics has been tried before, on very large scales, and led to total disaster. Soviet Union and Socialist Germany come to mind. One might say the USA as well, but it's too early to call that. Not until the fat lady sings, etc.
But yeah, to me, an economics nerd, looking at something like the venus project and how it chooses to completely ignore the whole field just seems ridiculous to me.
When we have machines that can give me a hot cup of earl gray on command, that's when we can start forgetting about economics and money. Maybe.