Zeitgeist Movement

8/7/2019 Zeitgeist Movement

1/30

Zeitgeist Movement: doubts and reservations

In January 2011, the movieZeitgeist III: Moving Forward was released online, for free andfor anyone willing to invest two hours and forty minutes of viewing time. The movie isdivided in two distinct parts. The first half analyses the current economic and socialcondition of humanity as a whole, while the second part presents and proposes a possiblesolution, known as The Venus Project.

Whether people like the movie or not, one thing is sure, it makes them question themselvesand things they take for granted, as well as sparking debate on what is possible. Regardlessof whether The Venus Project is the future or not, seeking alternatives to an obviouslyunsustainable and corrupt system nearing a collapse is, in my view, not only a healthyexercise but an ever more urgent one, if we care about the future.

From what I understood (please correct me if I'm wrong),The Venus Project core, is the idea of a Resource Based Economy. Since we live in a finiteplanet, all of the world's resources become heritage of everyone on the planet and are thenallocated on a per need basis. There are no politicians, as there are no decisions to be made,instead all decisions are arrived at through scientific methods. There's no money in this

system as people have always free access to what they need.
http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/01/zeitgeist-iii-moving-forward.htmlhttp://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/01/zeitgeist-iii-moving-forward.htmlhttp://www.thevenusproject.com/http://www.thevenusproject.com/http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-F1UET6qLL5w/TVQnedlB21I/AAAAAAAAAJU/uqFY13glVfc/s1600/Screen+shot+2011-02-10+at+17.57.11.pnghttp://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5pHfqn7tpC4/TVQnqcrdmUI/AAAAAAAAAJY/-ITVhSl1BTw/s1600/GLOBE6.jpghttp://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/01/zeitgeist-iii-moving-forward.htmlhttp://www.thevenusproject.com/


2/30

After watching the movie, most people seem to agree that the first part is an accurateanalysis of our current conditioning and relative problems. However, when it comes to theproposed solution, the consensus is not as prevalent and so the aim of this post is to present

the reservations I have regarding The Venus Project also known as The ZeitgeistMovement. These are probably common questions that the Zeitgeist Movement supportershear on a regular basis, so hopefully someone will be able to jump in and clarify them withease.

In a resource based economy:

1. What happens to people who don't agree with it and therefore don't want to be apart of it? We all know we can't please everyone all of the time, so how does it dealwith dissent? Or for example, what happens to people who don't want to live in acity, who want to be self-sufficient, growing their own food, generating their own

power, etc?2. I keep hearing that nobody makes decisions in a resource based economy, that

decisions are arrived at. But someone would have to define the educationcurriculum for example, no? And who would allocate jobs for example? A centralcomputer would? Based on people's qualifications and skill sets? How about skillsthat can't be accurately measured, say due to their subjectivity? Right now I'mthinking of creativity as an example but I'm sure there are many more.

3. Who defines and how is it defined, how much is enough? For example, lets say Iwant or need a second computer? Would I be allowed one? What if someone wantsa much bigger house and a swimming pool than everybody else, using thereforemore energy and water? Who's going to tell him/her that and they can't have it?

Cybernated Government4. Whoever has access to the central resource management computer, has incredible

power, be them programmers, engineers, etc. How is corruption prevented in thiscentralized system?

5. What happens when there are bugs, errors, breakdowns of the system and whatwould it be its global impact? Same question goes for an entire society living of thegrid, what happens if/when the grid fails? How is resilience achieved in a gridsystem?

6. Something that concerns me deeply is Genetically Modified food and I know manywho avoid it at all cost. Even if the technology was safe, I would rather not eat GMfood for ethical reasons. What if scientists found that this was the only logical wayto grow food, despite there being other options? What choice does the individualhave? I mean, how do ethics meet logic in a world where scientific progress rulesall?

7. (This is an organic list so expect updates. Update 1 starts here.)
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2010/11/invisible-noose.htmlhttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HXnXCig3zEk/TVQs4i8bKdI/AAAAAAAAAJk/Kzm4kuMslaA/s1600/city2.jpghttp://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2010/11/invisible-noose.html


3/30

8. Great, so everyone can choose to be or not to be in the RBE. So this would allowparallel systems to coexist or compete with the RBE? Does the RBE then accountfor the resources used outside of itself? Would it still be sustainable this way?

9. The decision making process is still unclear to me. I like all of the examples I readbut they don't answer my question specifically. Even if just for the transition periodor the duration of construction of the first city, won't someone have to call theshots? I can't see how the project will get off the ground without some sort ofleadership and decision making. This is a question that I have seen Jacque 'dodging'before, which seems out of character for him.

10. It sounds like a lifetime holiday, nobody being coerced to do anything they don'twant to do, everyone working and spending their time as they wish, great! In thiscase, what are the chances that what people want to work on will match the RBE'sneeds? And what happens when there's a gap in the human skills resource? Yes,because humans are also a resource in the RBE, right?

11. A few friends told me that if they could live this way they'd love to have largefamilies and just enjoy the time with them. They seem to believe that this is whateveryone would naturally do. What's preventing a sharp rise of population? Andwhat happens when/if the population grows beyond the carrying capacity of theEarth?

12. I understand that a lot of these questions are coming from a mindset of the currentsystem and that in the future people will not want the things we think we want now.However if the RBE is to ever materialise it must account for the transition periodwhere all that people are equipped with is their experience so far. This is why I askhow is calculated the amount of resources each citizen is allowed to use and how isthat enforced? I gave the example of a second laptop or a bigger house but it couldbe anything, at some point someone will want something ridiculous. How do youdeal with that?

13. I'm happy with the open source and transparency approach to the ResourceManagement System as well as all technology. It seems that alone would have anincredible positive impact in today's world, but how many of you still usewindows? (There's no need to answer this, the Ubuntu folks paid me to plugLinux ; ) My point is, there are a lot ofpersonal choices available to us today and Iwonder how many in the movement are aware of these.

14. I was relieved to read that people in the movement are aware of the dangers ofGenetically Modified food. Even if the technology ever becomes 'safe' and stable,

does anyone care to discuss the ethical implications of taking a gene, lets say, froman animal and inserting it in a plant and then releasing this into nature allowing it tocross pollinate with the local species and eventually extinct what took millions ofyears to evolve? Fact: 97% of all varieties of food crops in the US have alreadygone extinct since the industrial revolution. Over 95% of corn grown in the US isalready GM, and new GM crops are approved frequently. Isn't the mechanisticapproach to nature not just a side effect of the current society but the core of

science in general?

15. I see the current human problems as a symptom of human consciousness, or ratherthe lack of it. However, it's from within the current Zeitgeist that we must try toabstract ourselves from, if we're not to transfer our current inhumanities to the new

one. And although I can see the possibility of this happening in small steps, isn't theVenus Project hundreds of years ahead of its time?
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xefyjh_on-the-edge-no46-jacque-fresco-roxa_shortfilmshttp://www.ubuntu.com/http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2008/12/whats-going-on.htmlhttp://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2010/11/invisible-noose.htmlhttp://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2010/11/invisible-noose.htmlhttp://www.dailymotion.com/video/xefyjh_on-the-edge-no46-jacque-fresco-roxa_shortfilmshttp://www.ubuntu.com/http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2008/12/whats-going-on.htmlhttp://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2010/11/invisible-noose.htmlhttp://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2010/11/invisible-noose.html


4/30

16. (This is an organic list so expect updates.)

The way I understand it, any system is only as morally ethical as the people running thatsystem. Sure, some systems may promote more moral corruption than others, however is ascience driven society by definition free from corruption? Isn't science only as accurate andas ethical as the human mind (or ego) of the time allows? My opinion (which in a RBEwould have no value) is that decentralization of power, regardless of the system, is the onlyway to prevent corruption on a massive scale. The Internet is the best example of thistoday.

Yes, the Zeitgeist Movement is incredibly ambitious but making people wonder aboutwhat kind of world they'd like to live on, instead of merely point out the problems, can't bea bad thing. Critics are everywhere (including myself) but I don't hear them coming with

better solutions. Even if it never comes to be, the Venus Project is promoting a discussionand a mental exercise long overdue, to dream of a humanity in harmony with the planetand itself. What's the harm in that?

A Venus Project city

Scribbled by Ant. at 18:30Labels:Activism,Documentaries, Movements

34 comments:

Znews RSS said...This post has been removed by the author.10 February, 2011 22:16

Znews RSS said...
http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.htmlhttp://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/search/label/Activismhttp://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/search/label/Activismhttp://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/search/label/Documentarieshttp://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/search/label/Documentarieshttp://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/search/label/Movementshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08287205722790141509http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297376175870#c1780606771793821644http://www.blogger.com/profile/08287205722790141509http://www.blogger.com/profile/08287205722790141509http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=11241615&postID=1780606771793821644http://www.blogger.com/profile/08287205722790141509http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11241615&postID=4627762231121950704http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-d30ChORDI3s/TVQrpm-wHHI/AAAAAAAAAJc/Do4fNMXvXeA/s1600/Xarch31-682-463.jpghttp://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.htmlhttp://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/search/label/Activismhttp://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/search/label/Documentarieshttp://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/search/label/Movementshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08287205722790141509http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297376175870#c1780606771793821644http://www.blogger.com/profile/08287205722790141509


5/30

This post has been removed by the author.10 February, 2011 22:19

Douglas Mallette said...

Part 1

As one of the more well known and knowledgeable members of TZM, I will try mybest to answer your questions:

1. They don't have to be part of it. Something we always say is that if people wantto go live in the woods away from the city, then they can, just like today. No harm,no foul. That decision doesn't harm the capability of another person to live a high

standard of living.

In fact, part of the educational foundations imparted on the world is the knowledgeto help people live off the grid, on their own, and do their own thing if they wish.True independence, but with the help of technology, not reverting to primitivelifestyles.

However, if someone wants to live a life that does harm someone else, well, that'sdifferent. We conditionally accept that today because money governs that scenario.We won't accept that if we want to claim ourselves as civilized.

2. There are really just two main types of decision making/arriving processes inlife. Technical ones and social ones. No computer system is going to tell you whereto go eat dinner or whom to eat with. But the computer system of the city will helpyou get instant transportation to get where you want to go, using active algorithmsthat arrive at the decision as to what automated car is closest to you when you askfor it, and sending it to you. This can be extrapolated to many different examples.

The technical decision arriving processes are largely automated, and they are theprocesses that govern the operations of a city, like balancing the multi-levelelectricity grid, ensuring no power is wasted, and that any power surges or

overflow are properly stored for future use, and that any power deficiencies arerouted properly so no one ever notices and continues on with their life. People don'tneed to do that...computers can.

The technical decision arriving process also drives manufacturing. Remember, allcity systems are independent, having their own manufacturing processes foreverything the human race has invented. The only thing shipped around the globeare raw natural resources, not products, and all blueprints and designs are opensource. The output is directly governed by the input of the people living there.Statistical analysis can handle this. In fact, it handles this now. Companies conductproduct surveys and analysis so they can figure out how many widgets to make for

a certain demographic. That same analysis applies in the RBE (Resource BasedEconomy), but without a price tag motivation, just an efficiency motivation so all
http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297376358244#c8117784289615538049http://www.blogger.com/profile/04968228480817489654http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=11241615&postID=8117784289615538049http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297376358244#c8117784289615538049http://www.blogger.com/profile/04968228480817489654


6/30

people can get what they need based on real demand.

Something one also has to remember is that 'need' in today's world is highly

manipulative. Commercials teach people that they 'need' something to make theirlife better, and usually it's crap that people don't really need, but are meant to"think" they need. It's psychological warfare for selling products by making theconsumer feel inadequate. That scenario isn't in an RBE, therefore there is a realdifference between manufactured need and real need. Something to remember.

Job aren't allocated in the manner you're thinking. You're still thinking of a boss, orsome direct leadership dictating what work needs to get done and who is going todo it. That's not how the RBE works. We do that now because we need people to doa lot of crap work to make the system run, and dishing out crap work only appealsto people getting paid well for it. Money drives the bus here, cuz you have to work

to live. But even now that is changing and crap work is also paid bad, but peoplehave little choice. In the RBE, that's not the case. Crap work is automated as muchas possible, for the safety of people, for their health, and because human potential isso much greater than mundane, repetitive "dumb" labor.

CONT...

10 February, 2011 22:27


Part 2

People work on whatever they like. They can form their own groups and dowhatever motivates them, knowing that their quality of life has nothing to do withwhat they do for work, but that their work can contribute to the advancement of lifequality for everyone, including themselves.

There very well could be "companies" in the sense that they all have a workforcededicated to a particular job skill, like bridge building, or like in my case, the

aerospace industry and building rockets. The difference is motivation, not moneymotivation, but the passion and desire to work that kind of job because you love it.

In such a case, as an example, artists will thrive as never before. No more starvingartists, unless they want to try that just for the muse and inspiration of it. I'm wellaware that hard times and struggle can lead to people expressing art in a uniqueway. But in the RBE that's voluntary, not because they could literally die and haveno other choice. And art has changed and modified over time anyway, so whoknows what new level of art might manifest within the RBE system.

3. You're describing part of the social disease we have these days...the thinking that

we "need" a big fat house to feel special. To be honest, there is a scientificcalculation that can determine the adequate living space needed to be comfortable


7/30

and happy. A single person doesn't need a 10,000 square foot home. That's justplain stupid and wasteful. Nor is it right to cram someone in a 500 square foothome either. That's just as dumb.

However, in today's world, we glorify that fat house as success, power, wealth andprestige, and along with it we program the notion that someone deserves that kindof life if they've 'earned' it, but more often than not, the way they earned it is andwas at the expense of many others who got squashed along the way. How nice, thatone person has such a home that could house 10+ people happily, but instead thoseother 9 people are homeless and most likely dying. Not civilized.

Now, as for products, like needing a second computer, that's completely different.Note that products would be made differently, to last a LOT longer and haveinterchangeable parts so that when a new technology comes out, you simply replace

that part, not the whole computer. That's wasteful.

Now expand that out and we save a LOT of resources following that process, alongwith recycling and reuse. So it's not impossible to think that everyone could have afew computers at home. Hell, their whole house could be a computer, where you goto the touch screen on the wall and use it like you would a desktop system, but it'salready built into your home. Every home could have this capability...easily.

Our technical capabilities are being wasted in this monetary system, so when itcomes to products and such, before you wonder about, "How many of somethingcan I have," it's best to think about, "How much could I have now if money wasn'tscrewing it up and wasting so many resources."

As for, "Who will tell him/her that they can't have it," that would be society as awhole. Right now society tells people they can't punch someone in the face withoutpenalty. We make laws for that, but in reality it's not laws that dictate that, but asocial consciousness that understands that that kind of behavior is wrong.Politicians like to write stuff down, but it's a common understanding amongstsociety.

Likewise, it will be a common understanding that excess is wasteful and

irresponsible. The only real and true dictator is NATURE itself. There literally is afinite amount of stuff on the planet, and if we want to ensure that everyone has ahigh standard of living...as best as our present knowledge can give if they wantit...then that is our real governing system.

CONT...

10 February, 2011 22:28



8/30

Part 3

4. Excellent question. The resource management computer isn't as central as people

think it would be. It's hundreds of computer systems spread all over the globe,working together to monitor the sensors that tell us how much "stuff" we have onthe planet to work with. It's not one system, but a network of systems all workingtogether, each managed by different people around the world, but with the samegoals...to ensure the entire planet is healthy and that the resources aren't beingabused.

Question for you: How can the space shuttle fly with its hundreds of programs andsystems without someone mucking it up? How can the ISS float in space without amajor accident and killing everyone? Technically speaking, it's all about redundantsystems and multiple cross checks by separate entities. In other words, you build in

many layers of defense against someone doing that, and given that the entire systemis set up to benefit everyone, it will be pretty obvious if something goes tilted andyou see a certain group gain advantage over another.

Also, it's all open source. Nothing is secret. People can see how the system works,where things are going, what decisions are being arrived at, etc. That muchtransparency, mixed with backup protections and a myriad of people around theworld working hard to ensure it's beneficial for all mankind (the right mindset)would pretty much squash the ability for some nefariously minded buffoon to messit up.

5. See my above answer for the bug question...redundancy and backup systems. Butto address your energy question, there is no grid in the way you're thinking, with asingle source providing the power for the region. One of the things we do a terriblejob of today is making buildings self sufficient, because it costs too much. Imaginea city where most buildings and the roads themselves(http://www.solarroadways.com) are power sources, not sinks, meaning they add tothe system and not just take away. Now factor in wind power, capacitor systems,battery backups, wind, wave, tidal, etc. and you have a "grid" that has hundreds, ifnot thousands of power generation sources for the city and all the outlying areas.Not to mention that the outlying areas themselves would be energy independent

since they would be their own sources too. Basically, the only thing that wouldcrash the system would be a big fat solar flare heading towards Earth, and if that'shappening, the energy grid is the least of our concerns. :)

6. This is a great question, because it leads to the fact that science today is quitemanipulated by the monetary system we're in. GM foods are crap, and we do NOTneed to do that to grow adequate food for the world. However, scientists areemployed (paid) to serve a company to do research that benefits the company. Thescientists have to survive in this system, and if, for example, you were to look at themen who made the atom bomb, after the fact many of them admit that they werejust doing the science because they enjoyed the science, and never thought about

how it would be used. They convinced themselves of this. Likewise for researchscience that is paid to achieve a certain result. Throw enough money at it and you'll


9/30

get the results you want, even if they are socially offensive, because today, makingmoney is the goal, not being socially responsible.

In the RBE, science will not be hamstrung by this, and so the cream will rise to thetop, there will be adequate debate on all sides of a problem, and nothing can bebought off or sold into silence. It would be different than today.

With that said, I am currently working on a fully automated hydroponic foodgrowth system that is completely organic, healthy, NOT GM, no pesticides,herbicides or anything else. It is scientific, can be done, will be done, and I'll proveit. :) As an engineer and science minded person, I know if what I speak. :)

CONT...

10 February, 2011 22:28


Part 4

I hope these answers met your satisfaction. If/when you have time, please watchthese two videos:

My lecture in Caux, Switzerland in Aug of 2010: Science , Engineering andTechnology for a Sustainable World:

http://www.youtube.com/user/TZMSocialEvolution?blend=2&ob=1#p/c/63055227D85BA223/0/THkIo4PrYzo

And a TV show debate I had recently (Jan 2010) that covers a lot of what we talkedabout here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/TZMSocialEvolution?blend=2&ob=1#p/c/A77541417B4A4681/0/WC4swzsWixY

I hope these help iron out anything else that comes to mind, but if not, just let meknow and I'll do all I can to help answer any reasonable questions you have.

Respectfully,

Douglas MalletteSpace Shuttle Systems Engineer Space Advocacy Speaker Advocate/Speaker for The Venus ProjectAuthor: Turning Point (On www.lulu.com)

Houston, TX


10/30

10 February, 2011 22:29

Cristi Catea said...

all this questions are answered by peter and he put a great deal of time andperspective into answering them so that anyone can understand them.

If you are just looking to argue with someone, not use critical thought and youalready took a side, then you fail because none will join you.

all the information you need is already out there, you might want to research a bitbefore going blind into this kind of discussion.

some advice: try to compare the system that you live in now and the one that wepropose and ask try to answer to your questions with the present system

check out http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com, peters radio archives and movies.

11 February, 2011 07:51

Andrew said...

Hi and thankyou for offering some civil discussion, many people on the internetdon't seem so patient or polite when criticising an idea they have just heard of :D

I started writing this just before bed last night, thinking I would finish it today andwasn't aware of the character limit, but since Doug as usual has beaten me to thepoint, I'll just post what I have for now, and if you want further explanation on anyof the specific later points or other questions, feel free to get in touch with me andI'll be happy to answer them.Otherwise I'll only add something after this if I think of something that he hasn't.

1. The Venus Project and members of the Zeitgeist Movement all agree that aprinciple of non-aggression is not only 'nice and fluffy' or 'desirable' but absolutelynecessary. The use of coercive force in any manner, physical or not, has only beenshown to result in anger and shame in the victim, resulting in them reciprocatingthe violence into the ongoing international blood feud that we see today. Prof.James Gilligan who was interviewed in ZMF has written extensively on the subjectfrom his 25 years experience in the US prison system, and I more than recommendany of his books on violence for a good read if you have the time and interest.If a Resource Based Economy is established, anyone who objects to its principlesor simply doesn't want to take part in the community and would rather go do theirown thing, would be freely allowed to do so. Of course over here in Scotland wehave the recent Findhorn community, etc. For a couple hundred years to the presentthere have been communities of Anabaptist Christians (the amish, hutterites, etc.)established in America that exist pretty much separated from mainstream society,

doing their own little thing, and we respect them for that. While they have beenallowed to avoid social security tax by forfeiting their privilege to the benefits, they
http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297376946059#c163817218754425398http://www.blogger.com/profile/14155585749384071271http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297410694678#c6229312739254841897http://www.blogger.com/profile/08675315515117082792http://www.amazon.co.uk/s?ie=UTF8&tag=firefox-uk-21&index=blended&link_code=qs&field-keywords=james%20gilliganhttp://www.amazon.co.uk/s?ie=UTF8&tag=firefox-uk-21&index=blended&link_code=qs&field-keywords=james%20gilliganhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Findhorn_Ecovillagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amishhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amishhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amishhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutteritehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutteritehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08675315515117082792http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=11241615&postID=6229312739254841897http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=11241615&postID=163817218754425398http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297376946059#c163817218754425398http://www.blogger.com/profile/14155585749384071271http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297410694678#c6229312739254841897http://www.blogger.com/profile/08675315515117082792http://www.amazon.co.uk/s?ie=UTF8&tag=firefox-uk-21&index=blended&link_code=qs&field-keywords=james%20gilliganhttp://www.amazon.co.uk/s?ie=UTF8&tag=firefox-uk-21&index=blended&link_code=qs&field-keywords=james%20gilliganhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Findhorn_Ecovillagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amishhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutterite


11/30

actually seem to still encounter some level of hostility and persecution from thesurrounding communities.If such communities exist around an RBE, and we're pretty sure they will, we will

try to teach everyone to approach them with the utmost respect, understanding anddiplomacy, as there is no better way to establish good relations. If a community'svalue system, e.g. capitalism, leads them to unwittingly do damage to theenvironment, we will show them with scientific evidence how damaging one partof this planet's ecosystem can negatively affect people in all regions including theone where any pollution etc. started. We will engage people in discussion based onreason and evidence rather than rhetoric or values because that is how we all agreeto do things.If another community finds that it has a food shortage due to poor management,and the people become disorderly and want to invade us for our resources, ratherthan the typical capitalist response of dropping bombs on them, we would

figuratively 'drop food on them' using our reserves and any boost in production thatwe can get out of hydroponic units, while trying to communicate our best methodsof agriculture to them.

We have a member of the movement that runs his own internet talk-radio show andfrequently explains these points to people and has shown to be a shining example ofhow you can have a civil discussion with some people of the most wildly differingviewpoints including free-market capitalists, you can hear a lot of this in hisarchives at V-Radio.

11 February, 2011 14:48

Andrew said...

2. The statement 'nobody makes decisions' is sadly often made too broadly, butwhat we mean more specifically when we say that is that nobody gets put inpositions of power and makes up decisions that affect many other people's

lives based upon their own narrow opinion of things. Not only would nobodyhave to decide on an education curriculum, there wouldn't be one. Kids learn muchbetter when they are allowed to pursue their own interests with the only true humannature, curiosity. Of course most fields of enquiry and activity require basic

understanding of the language we agree to use as a society plus mathematics andany relevant sciences. Rather than cramming a fixed view of history etc. down kids'necks, the only things we will teach to all kids will be critical thinking, i.e. how toask for and examine sources of information to back up any point, and diplomacy,peacemaking, mediating, or whatever you want to call the set of skills involvingestablishing and maintaining good interpersonal relationships. For a more in-depthlook at this argument, see Alfie Kohn's many books on the subject.Decisions that mostly only affect an individual, like 'what do I want to do with mylife' are of course up to the individual. Nobody can tell you what to do so long asyou aren't doing harm to the rest of society, but we can quite easily tell peoplewhere the greatest need for volunteers is, and if the field interests them in the

slightest then they might decide to research it. When we put as much effort aspossible into automating the mundane manual labour tasks that support society, the
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/v-radiohttp://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297435725028#c6863431772691446090http://www.blogger.com/profile/08675315515117082792http://www.amazon.co.uk/s?ie=UTF8&tag=firefox-uk-21&index=blended&link_code=qs&field-keywords=Alfie%20Kohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08675315515117082792http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=11241615&postID=6863431772691446090http://www.blogtalkradio.com/v-radiohttp://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297435725028#c6863431772691446090http://www.blogger.com/profile/08675315515117082792http://www.amazon.co.uk/s?ie=UTF8&tag=firefox-uk-21&index=blended&link_code=qs&field-keywords=Alfie%20Kohn


12/30

only remaining jobs will be for the most part creative, and we will have more thanenough people to do them.I can't think of a very concrete example right now, but I can see the old methods of

testing aptitude through competitive, graded, standardised timed examinationsbeing pushed aside in favour of more engagement in collaborative learning,knowing that people are ready to continue when they can solve problems of aparticular level of complexity when placed in several different groups.

11 February, 2011 14:49

Codie Vickers said...

Your questions are all irrelevant because the zeitgeist movement is nothing but a

Peter Merola fan club. The Venus Project is a pie in the sky fantasy Jacque Frescohas been using for decades to fleece people.

11 February, 2011 14:53

Brave New Dawn said...

I'll be glad when we starting building the future and move into it, as I'm sure wedon't all want to end up jobless, penniless and homeless!

11 February, 2011 15:38

Leo Alexandersaid...

@Cristi - Be nice. Ant is being very respectful to us and is only expressing hisdesire to understand us better. There is nothing wrong with someone askingquestions and we shouldn't attack them for it.

11 February, 2011 16:10


Hello Ant. This will be a long comment, so I have to split it into two separatecomments, but I hope to address as many of your questions as possible.

1- Nothing. Not everyone has to agree and participate. Groups like the Amishwouldn't want anything to do with our cities if they can help it. In that case, theyare free to live in their own communities separate from the cities according to theirown rules and customs. In the event something happens (tornado or hurricane orearly frost) and wipes out their crops, homes, etc., they can get what they need fromthe nearest city to sustain themselves until they can rebuild. Even some members of

the Zeitgeist Movement would choose not to live in the cities -- a member of theMaryland chapter has stated that he wants to grow his own food, hunt his owngame, build his own house, and generate his own electricity with photovoltaic
http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297435751272#c7060779760098568970http://www.blogger.com/profile/09732646785590012495http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297436019482#c5763234054809195737http://www.blogger.com/profile/15349305129494680291http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297438707713#c5883400798242011127http://www.blogger.com/profile/08287205722790141509http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297440648601#c896282144434629111http://www.blogger.com/profile/08287205722790141509http://www.blogger.com/profile/08287205722790141509http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=11241615&postID=896282144434629111http://www.blogger.com/profile/08287205722790141509http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=11241615&postID=5883400798242011127http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=11241615&postID=5763234054809195737http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=11241615&postID=7060779760098568970http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297435751272#c7060779760098568970http://www.blogger.com/profile/09732646785590012495http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297436019482#c5763234054809195737http://www.blogger.com/profile/15349305129494680291http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297438707713#c5883400798242011127http://www.blogger.com/profile/08287205722790141509http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297440648601#c896282144434629111http://www.blogger.com/profile/08287205722790141509


13/30

generators that he built himself.

2- Education is something I disagree with Jacque about. Jacque's opinion is that a

classroom setting with a defined curriculum designed to allow each student the bestopportunity to learn the material would be best, whereas I believe that the besteducation would come from allowing everyone unrestricted access to all the world'sknowledge and allowing the individual to learn about whatever he or she isinterested in according to his or her own desires. For those who develop a deepinterest in a particular field, I would support an apprentice-master style ofeducation (not necessarily one apprentice) with hands-on learning instead ofpassive classrooms where you're taught what people think you should know.Unfortunately I don't have any substantial evidence to solidify my case (I'mstudying the results of what is known as Unschooling as well as the MontessoriMethod), but sooner or later I can provide a worthwhile argument through Zeitblog.

As far as jobs are concerned, people would work in the fields that interest them.People will not work if they are forced to, especially if their needs are already met,therefore, we will stand back and let the robot enthusiasts build robots, painterspaint, singers sing, bands perform, physicists find the Higgs-Boson, engineers andarchitects design new systems and structures, athletes play sports and gamers playgames. Humans are so adaptable and have such varied interests that any task whicheither can not or will not be automated will be performed by individuals who areinterested in performing that task. If there is a job that nobody wants to do thenvolunteers will do it until the engineers can automate it -- if there are not enoughvolunteers then the engineers will have to hurry up and automate it, hahaha.

3- This question assumes things will be owned. In a society where resources arescarce, people purchase and own things to secure their access to those resources.People enjoy cars because they enjoy having access to reliable transportation, butmany hate having to repair, maintain, ensure, and fuel their vehicles -- if peoplesimply want access to reliable transportation, design and develop a system that willtake anyone anywhere in the world on-demand, or as on-demand as possible, anddesign support systems that will maintain, repair, and refuel the vehicleautomatically. This applies to houses and pools as well: people want access toshelter and recreation and they accept the inconveniences that come with owningthe home and the pool. Instead of making one of everything for everyone, we

simply develop systems that allow access to these things and automate themaintenance and repair.

11 February, 2011 16:14

Leo Alexandersaid...This post has been removed by the author.11 February, 2011 16:14


4- Corruption of the central computer system by individuals or groups ofindividuals would be impossible. This situation assumes that the source code would
http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297440845209#c3787750088995065925http://www.blogger.com/profile/08287205722790141509http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297440868562#c425061937765468990http://www.blogger.com/profile/08287205722790141509http://www.blogger.com/profile/08287205722790141509http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=11241615&postID=425061937765468990http://www.blogger.com/profile/08287205722790141509http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=11241615&postID=3787750088995065925http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297440845209#c3787750088995065925http://www.blogger.com/profile/08287205722790141509http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297440868562#c425061937765468990http://www.blogger.com/profile/08287205722790141509


14/30

be hidden as it is with proprietary software -- in a cybernated society this would notbe so. Every computer system, from cell phones to robots to the resource-management system itself, would be completely open-sourced. Furthermore,

because information would be unrestricted, everyone would be given the ability tolearn to program these systems, therefore, everyone with an understanding of thesystem, and the desire to maintain and improve it, would be able to protect thesesystems and prevent intentional or accidental corruption due to human interests orhuman error (ie- software bugs).

5- They would be fixed as quickly as possible (which won't take very long wheneveryone has access to the system's designs and understands the system wellenough to be able to diagnose the error). Once the system is restored, an upgradewould be designed and installed to prevent that error from occuring again. Thesame answer applies to any system -- if it breaks, we fix it, figure out why it broke,

then make sure that error doesn't occur again.

6- There is no need to eat genetically-modified food, regardless of whether or not itis safe. I am working with a few members of the Maryland chapter of the ZeitgeistMovement to develop a community-run aquaponic farm to teach the localcommunity about sustainable food production (hydroponics, aeroponics,aquaponics, in-vitro meat production, etc.) to educate people on alternative meansof producing more than enough food for their community. In 1996, global foodproduction was so high it would have fed over 2 trillion people in 1 year. 1/100ththe amount of land area used to grow that much food would still be more thanenough to feed the world. An aquaponic farm developed by Growing Power growsapproximately 1 million pounds of food on 3 acres -- I believe that, through carefulresearch and design, my group could produce the same amount of food in 1 acre,and increase production linearly by simply adding stories to the structure. Tosimplify all this, we have the ability right now to grow all the food we will everneed using completely natural (meaning no genetic engineering) means. On a sidenote, genetic engineering in and of itself isn't harmful (as far as I am aware). Thisclaim originated because Monsanto genetically-engineered a soybean to be immuneto their pesticide. The specific gene that they developed may be harmful to humans,as are the pesticides used on them and the growth hormones given to the animalsthat we eat, but genetic engineering itself may not be harmful. In fact, it is quite

possible that we could engineer various fruits and vegetables to be more nutritious.However, if science could prove that genetically-modified food is safer, moreefficient, and healthier, but various individuals did not want to eat it, they couldsimply learn to build their own hydroponic/aeroponic/aquaponic/etc. farm and growtheir own food.

7- Please email me at [email protected] when you update this list. I willbe glad to answer your questions as best as I can.

11 February, 2011 17:08

http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297444096454#c5832515376369517720http://www.blogger.com/profile/08287205722790141509http://www.blogger.com/profile/08287205722790141509http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=11241615&postID=5832515376369517720http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297444096454#c5832515376369517720http://www.blogger.com/profile/08287205722790141509


15/30

To address the rest of your post, pure science is completely immune to corruption.Science, if done properly, does not hold on to concepts it has proven to beincorrect. It has no ego nor any self-interest. Science looks at a problem and says,

"This works, this doesn't work, and this works even better." It adjusts itselfaccording to the information presented. Science cannot be misused, it can only beused or not used, therefore, a science-driven community cannot be corruptedbecause it does not allow individual interest regarding the determination of fact andfiction. Moreover, there is no centralized power structure in an RBE. Everyoneknows, or is able to learn, how to design and build everything. Everyone knows, oris able to learn, how to read and understand the designs for everything. If either asingle individual or a group of individuals attempts to take over or destroy asystem, everyone else can simply stop the individual or group and protect thesystems. An RBE, if implemented properly, is incorruptible.

11 February, 2011 17:08

Ant. said...

Wow... I'm blown away by the prompt and overwhelming response! Thank youeveryone for taking the time to reply so extensively and helpfully, thus making theVenus Project picture a little bit clearer in my mind.

Douglas, I watched both of your videos and the debate was particularly educationalbecause for a while I have considered the advantages in a libertarian, free marketphilosophy, but I think you made a very strong case for the RBE.

Douglas, Andrew & Leo, instead of replying to everyone point by point (whichwould take me forever!), I will update the question list with new questions whichsparked from reading all of your generous answers.

By the way, I don't want to sound ungrateful but if you could keep future repliesmore concise, it would probably go a long way in to not scaring readers away whenthey look at the scrollbar : )

Thank you again for joining me in this mental exercise, I look forward to theanswers to the new questions, which I will update on the post above soon.

12 February, 2011 00:03

Lantz said...

i'll answer number 8 since all the other questions are more detailed specific that ipersonally dont have the answers for.

8. if someone opted out of the RBE they're essentially living on their own. theywouldn't be competing with the RBE since they'd be growing their own food,
http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297444105793#c8031222096726591748http://www.blogger.com/profile/14399585433053367955http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297469031173#c4246802869071300953http://www.blogger.com/profile/11610216228032019986http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=11241615&postID=4246802869071300953http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=11241615&postID=8031222096726591748http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297444105793#c8031222096726591748http://www.blogger.com/profile/14399585433053367955http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297469031173#c4246802869071300953http://www.blogger.com/profile/11610216228032019986


16/30

generating their own power, and collecting their own water. the only thing theywould come to town for would be to get what they can't provide for themselves. inother words, they're an extension of the RBE. and unless the person is mining gold

in their backyards (which the RBE would keep track of), there wouldn't be aconcern for resource usage since food, water, and electricity are all renewablesources. they'd be producing it by themselves, for themselves.

13 February, 2011 00:30

Andrew said...

I'll try to be a lot briefer this time.

I personally find Lantz's answer to 8 to be a bit dubious and unspecific, but that's

just my opinion.

The idea of 'competing' with an RBE doesn't have any meaning, since the wholeaim of the RBE is to achieve not only a balanced load but reduce waste so muchthat we have an abundance of our needs. As we have said before, with a groupoutside of an RBE making their own use of localised resources, we would simplybe approaching them diplomatically on the basis of our findings on what efficiencywe can achieve with our system. If a different community is sitting on top of auseful resource that we might want, such as a particular mineral, we would firstlybe looking at where other reserves of it are located in the world, secondlynegotiating a mutually beneficial deal with the community if we have need for theresource, and thirdly using other technological means to meet the ends that theresource would be used for.

9. When you refer to Jacque 'dodging' a question being out of character, and point alink to his interview on Edge Media TV, that is so recent that I wouldn't put it downto him 'dodging' the question so much as not hearing the question he's being askeddue to his age, :D and going off on what he thinks was asked instead of clarifyingthe question, which is a genuine criticism I think he ought to take on board. That'swhy I don't generally see interviews with him in the last few years as being veryuseful, especially if the interviewer isn't completely aware of this.

My answer to you is actually a question, "exactly which types of decisions are youtalking about?", because without that clarification you might get the answer to aquestion that's not the same as what you were thinking about deep down.I'll try one example that I'm very familiar with anyway, when it comes to designand development of systems in the RBE, if you want to know how to manufacturesomething, you generally use a method where you compare materials and processesbased upon their tangible properties and merits. You grade the possibilities basedupon which not only meets the problem but best surpasses the specification withthe biggest safety factor of strength, lowest weight, lowest energy to process, etc.Some possibilities will be knocked right out on qualitative bases such as "nottransparent" or "toxic in culinary use", and quantitative bases such as "not fire

resistant enough" or "corrodes too fast".Such a logical method is applicable to many but not all fields outside industrial
http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297557043859#c2388922642014783668http://www.blogger.com/profile/08675315515117082792http://www.iaeng.org/publication/WCE2010/WCE2010_pp2322-2326.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_selectionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08675315515117082792http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=11241615&postID=2388922642014783668http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297557043859#c2388922642014783668http://www.blogger.com/profile/08675315515117082792http://www.iaeng.org/publication/WCE2010/WCE2010_pp2322-2326.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_selection


17/30

manufacture, but the point is, can you challenge us to something that you thinkcannot be examined and/or quantified scientifically? That will make the answer farmore useful, but there are some types of situation where the question is so trivial

that it can be left up to local opinion, such as "what colour to paint" something.Unless you're talking about a psychotherapist's office, in which case you might askresearchers which colours make people feel most at ease.

14 February, 2011 14:57

Andrew said...

10. Given the levels of volunteering that exist today within the capitalist wage-labour culture, to quote an old statistic long before the rise of the open-sourceculture, "In a 1992-released Gallop poll: more than 50% of American adults

volunteered with no pay for social causes at an average of 4.2 hours a week, for atotal of 20.5 billion hours."4.2 hours/week each during the 90's? With the disposition of anyone likely to wantto participate in the RBE, the starting requirement for maintenance of machines thatcan't yet self-repair would be far more than met.When it comes to creative/investigative professions that are lacking in a particulargeneration, that is a non-need, but you can still put it to the artists of the currentgeneration to inspire the next to advance that field. History has shown that if someresearch is needed to meet a particular human need, e.g. curing a common disease,people always step forwards with great motivation to fix that problem.Possibly the greatest examples in series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

11. "A few friends" do not compare to the statistical trend that people in countrieswith a higher standard of living always tend to have a lowerbirth-rate, and "believethat this is what everyone would naturally do", if quoted closely to theirstatements, shows their belief in the common misconception of "human nature". Ishouldn't need to dwell on this point if you have seen ZMF, look up the research ofthose professors interviewed.

14 February, 2011 15:47

Andrew said...

12. "at some point someone will want something ridiculous" Either qualify thisstatement with evidence or define 'ridiculous'. Generally the answer would be thatthe person has some psychological condition that they need therapy for, if theridiculous need is killing people, then the person needs to be restrained insofar as toprotect the public while causing as little harm or distress to the individual aspossible, and then they need rehabilitative therapy, once again, see James Gilligan'sbooks for more detail on this fine point.

In general the approach is not "how much resources each citizen is allowed to use",

but "how can we meet everyone's needs with the least amount of resources". Theanswer to that as we are saying is a culture in which people are given access to
http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297695455538#c3979862141627609704http://www.blogger.com/profile/08675315515117082792http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Jennerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteurhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteurhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_nightingalehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_nightingalehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Lister,_1st_Baron_Listerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kochhttp://overpopulationisamyth.com/2-point-1-kids-a-stable-populationhttp://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297698436283#c2326157413931797190http://www.blogger.com/profile/08675315515117082792http://www.blogger.com/profile/08675315515117082792http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=11241615&postID=2326157413931797190http://www.blogger.com/profile/08675315515117082792http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=11241615&postID=3979862141627609704http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297695455538#c3979862141627609704http://www.blogger.com/profile/08675315515117082792http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Jennerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteurhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_nightingalehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Lister,_1st_Baron_Listerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kochhttp://overpopulationisamyth.com/2-point-1-kids-a-stable-populationhttp://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297698436283#c2326157413931797190http://www.blogger.com/profile/08675315515117082792


18/30

what they need in a similar way to a library. If you want to use a laptop, peoplewho like doing lots of computer work all the time will probably carry alaptop/palmtop/tablet or whatever best meets their individual needs for as long as

they need it, and it would be built specifically with durability and upgrade in mind.For anyone who just wants to do something every now and then, there will bepublic computer clusters just like any modern school or university has. With thefree information and art revolution, public storage of large files such as movies willrequire far less space due to the lack of multiplicity, i.e. more like a universal formof youtube instead of keeping your own hard-drive set aside full of piratedmovies... of course none of us do that now so it's a terrible example! ;)If someone wants to play a game like football, they go to a public recreation centreand pick up high-quality equipment that fits them well, if they want to use a yacht,they go to a marina and pick one up, etc.If someone wants to hoard something all to themself, then they probably have a

lesser psychological disorder that can be solved, such as paranoia and low self-esteem that surfaces as attention-seeking.People's needs would be met realistically and compassionately.

13. I mostly use windows because I was introduced to it in school, and the majorityof the engineering software that I use is still only compatible with it, although I canemulate some of that to some extent in Wine. I have been learning to use Linuxgradually over the last few years around my busy life at university, and only in thelast year have begun using it for any everyday personal use. I have to say I preferthe Backtrack distros in some situations... ;)

14 February, 2011 15:55

Andrew said...

14. No, in a small way you are asking the wrong question. The use of GMexperimentation with food is neither 'just' a result of the current climate or science,but the combination of both.Science is merely a tool for finding the best solutions to a problem once youspecify your conditions. When the conditions are heavily weighed on the absurdideals of the monetary system, we see huge environmental destruction and damage

to plant variety with extremely insufficient tests for releasing modified strains.When you weigh heavily on the good stewardship of the earth as a condition, youresult in the equally valid science ofPermaculture, which while having beautifullyelegant and clean methods, falls short of some production goals.When you input the conditions of the RBE that the earth must be preserved whilemeeting humanity's needs, the use of modern hydroponictechnology makes sensein order to provide some of our annual crops, and with that huge jump in efficiencycompared to monoculture growing in a field, in partnership with Permaculturestrategies, we can restore the earth while easily feeding more than 10 billion peopleif we need to.

15. TVP being 'ahead of its time' doesn't mean much, for it would be beneficial tostart teaching people to treat the management of the world in a rational way as early
http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297698926797#c2744738376822229893http://www.blogger.com/profile/08675315515117082792http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroponicshttp://omegagarden.com/index.php?content_id=1502http://www.blogger.com/profile/08675315515117082792http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=11241615&postID=2744738376822229893http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297698926797#c2744738376822229893http://www.blogger.com/profile/08675315515117082792http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroponicshttp://omegagarden.com/index.php?content_id=1502


19/30

as possible. However, I would say this is the prime time for it to exist, since wehave the current economic downturn to motivate the needed transition, which isbecoming urgent as oil wells keep going dry and the remaining havens for

biodiversity are are being put under pressure.If TVP or something like it didn't turn up for a few hundred years, you can bethumanity would have made the planet uninhabitable long before then based on itscurrent course.

14 February, 2011 16:20


Ant - "I don't want to sound ungrateful but if you could keep future replies more

concise."

I hear you, but short answers are sometimes very difficult, because then they lead tomore questions anyway, or someone tries to fill in the blanks with their ownincorrect assumptions and projections. Thus why the answers are detailed. After awhile of doing this, I have come to learn that if you don't spell out every detail,people will add whatever they want to the mix, and 90% of the time it's incorrectassumptions. Now, onto the questions...

8. I talked about this in my discussion with John Bush, the link I've alreadyprovided. How can a system with no form of exchange work alongside a systemwith a form of exchange? This is the trickiest part of the transition, if the RBEstarts to be adopted. There is a major disconnect between the two options.

People in the RBE live for free, in abundance. So then what, someone from anothersystem visits an RBE city, gets 5 TV's for free, then goes back to his/her systemand sells them. The RBE did the work, and that schmuck makes a profit in theirsystem. Now yes, we might be able to set up a way to prevent that from happening,but that's a form of personal tracking of people who are RBE and the rest whoaren't. That's not exactly a "free" society as we want it to be.

Just look at today. Is there a competing system with the Monetary System? Can anation work strictly with trade and barter within this system and maintain a highstandard of living for its people? No. Why? Because we live in a globallyconnected world, and the dominant system runs the show.

It's not like the RBE is supporting a different monetary system idea, or a differentexchange medium idea. It's supporting NO system of exchange thanks to technicalabundance and global resource management, not just local resource management.

Now at first, of course both systems will exist at the same time, but they won't becompatible. Basically for the RBE to work, enough nations with plentiful natural

resources will have to be involved so that we're not dependent on anything from anation that operates with money. We have to be autonomous relative to the other


20/30

systems.

However, and this is pure speculation on my part (hypothesis if you will) I strongly

believe that when a test city is built, and a few nations show interest, the publicawareness of how the system works and how amazing it is will be enough to flipthe majority of the planet over to the RBE. People will WANT a better life, if it'sshown in front of their faces and not just on paper. Once the planet is living inrelative abundance, then people can't game the RBE for advantage. However, ifthere is a 50/50 split between the old system and RBE, and there isn't enoughabundance yet, people could game the RBE for advantage in their system, just likepeople game the system today.

14 February, 2011 16:32


9. Ah, I see what you're saying. Let me approach this a different way. People willmake decisions on specific things in their life, at "work", etc. What they won't bemaking decisions on are things that affect the well being of the life quality ofothers...which is city operations. No person decides who gets water, food, shelter,clothing, transportation, etc. ALL people get that. The computer systems of thecities work to ensure that everything runs smoothly, making on-the-fly decisionswhen necessary to ensure everything works properly.

Today, when we have larger scale problems, we ask politicians to make decisionsfor us. Most of the time, there is a technical fix to that problem, but not enoughmoney to do it. In the RBE, that's a non-issue. The problem is logged by someone,the system analyzes the data related to it (like similar problems around the worldand how they were fixed) and then implements a solution option to solve theproblem based on all relevant data. It arrives at the decision through properanalysis. No one makes a decision based on opinion or money. If that's not feasible,then a request would be sent to ask for help from subject matter experts to gettogether and study and solve the problem, still using the scientific method. Whenthere's a fire, the firemen are called upon. When there's a technical problem, the

relevant technical people are called upon.

Now let's look at your test city question: We're not in the RBE yet, and we don'thave a fully integrated globe working together to do this data analysis in real time,so at first, people will make decisions...to a point. There won't be a singularsomeone calling the shots, as you say, but teams of subject matter experts will worktogether to ensure that whatever is built is of the utmost quality and technicalcapability. The baseline would be Jacque's models and ideas. You have to startsomewhere. That's the baseline, not necessarily the final design. After properresearch and analysis, the final design will be established because it's technicallythe best option available based on what we're capable of at the time.

It's the same with how we all work on the space shuttle. No one person makes a


21/30

decision. Teams of people from various disciplines do analysis and give theirresults, based on the scientific method. You either can or can't move beyondsticking points, and if you have a sticking point, you work to resolve it.

One seriously bad assumption is that the RBE is completely governed by computersin all aspects and that people do nothing at all. Wrong. The RBE is simply a moreefficient and streamlined economic system that uses technology where appropriate,not for EVERYTHING. Human creativity, ingenuity and imagination account foreverything we've ever developed. No computer can do that, and even if they could,so what?

Part of being human is being a creative being, and no computer system should takethat away. The technology is a supplement to help humanity live high quality livesin sustainable ways so we don't harm the planet while living well. Technology is

not the governing body, but the assistant.

If tech can arrive at a decision without the need for human intervention, then cool.That frees up people to do other things. If not, then teams of people will worktogether to solve whatever issues crop up.

14 February, 2011 16:37


10. lol. In a way, it is a lifetime holiday, but a holiday where you get to do whatyou love doing and always live well.

The RBE doesn't really have needs. I mean, when the RBE is up and running, wehave abundance of all things that help people live high quality lives. That's thebaseline. But as far as what people work on, when the system supports them, they'llsupport the system. Now, that's not to say that someone might want to do advancedresearch on the Electric Universe Theory. Does that have anything to do with theRBE? No. Does it reduce the quality of life of anyone living in the RBE? No. Sowho cares? lol.

Basically, as long as what people work on doesn't harm anyone or wildly wasteresources, then they can have at it. In fact, many advancements have come frompeople working on one thing, but accidentally finding an answer to somethingcompletely different. I call this accidental success. lol. In a world where all optionsare open for discovery, this could happen all the time. As long as the baseline of theRBE isn't mucked with...woohoo! :)

HR gaps can be solved by technical solutions. But this also depends on the qualityof educations people receive. Remember, several billion people on this planet havevery poor educations. In the RBE, everyone has great educations, so now you have

a few billion added people to the mix (relative to today) that can help advancehumanity.


22/30

I've said this many times...I can't imagine how many potential Einstein's have diedin 3rd world nations simply because of where they were born. In the RBE, ALL

people have the opportunity to advance their potential, and that will give a verylarge pool to pull from.

11. I have many friends who would love to travel, explore and enjoy the world andwould not want to have large families at all. It all balances out.

Statistical fact that can be found via many creditable sources like W.H.O. andothers:

Wealthy nations maintain population equilibrium.

Actually, if you were to look at America specifically, immigration is a bigpopulation driver, not native procreation, meaning that if people didn't come intoAmerica, our population would have flat lined or declined.

Poor nations overpopulate.

It's really that simple. If life is good, medical care is of a high standard, food isavailable, etc., people don't overproduce offspring. They are busy living their lives,enjoying mobility, having fun, working hard, getting advanced educations,practicing safe sex, etc.

In poor nations where the odds of dying before 5 yrs old are high, the animal sideof humans comes out and makes a lot of babies in the hopes that a few will surviveto advance the gene pool. Plus, reflect on the safe sex and education aspect of poornations and you can see why they overpopulate so much.

In short, when life is good, humans maintain balance.

However, let's assume for the sake of argument that there was a population boom.That's what space exploration is for. At some point, our sun will expand and kill theEarth. We're going to have to move anyway, so be it solar issues, an asteroid

coming, or overpopulation, colonizing other worlds and getting off this rock is asolution that will be way more plausible in the RBE than today. There's not enoughmoney on the planet to build Moon and Mars Bases, but in the RBE, we can...andwe can use asteroid resources to do it. :)

14 February, 2011 16:41


12. It's very hard to answer hypotheticals like this, because there are many variables

involved in the transition. The transition is the hardest thing to discuss, because noone knows how people will handle it. I'd like to think that when the majority of


23/30

people see how their lives could be improved by witnessing a solid, real example inwork, then they'd understand and accept all that goes with it...including that theRBE, ergo the planet, cannot allow for ridiculous 'wants' based on old system

thinking.

Each person is not assigned a number of lifetime resources. That's not how itworks, because new technical and material advancements would totally change anynumber assigned. That is a restriction, and the RBE is about emergence andadvancement. A simple example is this: Today we get a lot more out of a ton of'resources' than we did 200 years ago, thanks to technical advancement. Thespecific resource isn't important. What matters is that we've gotten better at usingwhat we've got.

Also, consider that the majority of resources we need are long lasting and

renewable, but that we waste an awful lot these days. Clothing can be recycled,food is grown in abundance, shelter is long lasting and plentiful, etc. Now, ifsomeone living within a RBE city (for example) demands 3 homes and 10 cars,that's plain stupid. It won't happen. They won't get it. It will also be obvious thatthey don't understand what the RBE is about. There is a mental shift required forpeople to live in the RBE, but people are adaptable and can change.

Also, during the transition, there will still be laws and rules from the old system inplace. The goal of the RBE is to dissolve them as quickly as possible byimplementing the abundance paradigm, so that eventually the RBE is what it'ssupposed to be. You can't instantly abolish everything and expect a smoothtransition, which is why the transition will be interesting, to say the least.

13. Is Windows really a personal choice? It was already installed on my systemwhen I bought it. It was already installed on my system at work when I got here.When looking at this, you can't ignore the advanced and overbearing impact ofmarketing in today's system.

If computers were sold naked, and you could get whatever you wanted for free asyour OS, and if Linux actually did a better job of promoting itself to the public(which it sucks at), then I bet you'd see different numbers in usage of Windows and

Linux. However, when a given OS is already there, and since most people are notcomputer geeks, they just run with what they've got.

As for personal choice, that's great if people know there are other options out there.I bet if you asked 100 random people in the street what Linux was, 80% of themwouldn't have a clue. Ask them if they know what Windows is...100% would. lol.

14 February, 2011 16:48



24/30

12. It's very hard to answer hypotheticals like this, because there are many variablesinvolved in the transition. The transition is the hardest thing to discuss, because noone knows how people will handle it. I'd like to think that when the majority of

people see how their lives could be improved by witnessing a solid, real example inwork, then they'd understand and accept all that goes with it...including that theRBE, ergo the planet, cannot allow for ridiculous 'wants' based on old systemthinking.

Each person is not assigned a number of lifetime resources. That's not how itworks, because new technical and material advancements would totally change anynumber assigned. That is a restriction, and the RBE is about emergence andadvancement. A simple example is this: Today we get a lot more out of a ton of'resources' than we did 200 years ago, thanks to technical advancement. Thespecific resource isn't important. What matters is that we've gotten better at using

what we've got.

Also, consider that the majority of resources we need are long lasting andrenewable, but that we waste an awful lot these days. Clothing can be recycled,food is grown in abundance, shelter is long lasting and plentiful, etc. Now, ifsomeone living within a RBE city (for example) demands 3 homes and 10 cars,that's plain stupid. It won't happen. They won't get it. It will also be obvious thatthey don't understand what the RBE is about. There is a mental shift required forpeople to live in the RBE, but people are adaptable and can change.

Also, during the transition, there will still be laws and rules from the old system inplace. The goal of the RBE is to dissolve them as quickly as possible byimplementing the abundance paradigm, so that eventually the RBE is what it'ssupposed to be. You can't instantly abolish everything and expect a smoothtransition, which is why the transition will be interesting, to say the least.

13. Is Windows really a personal choice? It was already installed on my systemwhen I bought it. It was already installed on my system at work when I got here.When looking at this, you can't ignore the advanced and overbearing impact ofmarketing in today's system.

If computers were sold naked, and you could get whatever you wanted for free asyour OS, and if Linux actually did a better job of promoting itself to the public(which it sucks at), then I bet you'd see different numbers in usage of Windows andLinux. However, when a given OS is already there, and since most people are notcomputer geeks, they just run with what they've got.

As for personal choice, that's great if people know there are other options out there.I bet if you asked 100 random people in the street what Linux was, 80% of themwouldn't have a clue. Ask them if they know what Windows is...100% would. lol.

14 February, 2011 16:48
http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297702099393#c4145032033440854798http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=11241615&postID=4145032033440854798http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297702099393#c4145032033440854798


25/30


14. Why would you insert a gene from an animal into a plant and then randomly

release it into the wild? That sounds like a movie plot. lol.

I'm not a geneticist, so I'm not qualified to answer this kind of question specifically,but I'd have to say that via the scientific method, if one can show zero harmful sideeffects to GM'ing something, and it's an improvement, then so be it. I find that caseto be awfully rare though. I think nature has done a good job on its own.

The core of science is to learn about nature and how it works, and honestly, it isvery mechanical, whether you like it or not. This is what we're learning. Thetechnology only comes into play to help use nature's methods in a more efficientway to cover human needs. Where nature needs 100 acres to grow a food to feed X

number of people, we can use vertical farms and use just 2 acres for feed the samenumber. Stuff like that.

15. I bet many people thought the Wright brothers we're way ahead of their timetoo. The reason why I don't believe that TVP is way ahead of its time is becausenothing TVP talks about is fiction. Evey technology exists. Every social scientificstudy has been done and proves our points. Everything is on the table and ready tobe implemented. People just need to wake the "F" up and do what's right. lol.

And we never said this would be easy, but doing easy things is kinda boring, no?lol.

14 February, 2011 16:48

Ant. said...

8. Thank you Andrew, that makes sense.

Douglas, I understand the challenge of trading with systems that compete with theRBE, but if people are free to choose they don't want to be in the RBE, it is

inevitable that alternatives to the RBE will emerge, or the current ones stay inplace.

I don't see them as being "incompatible" since trade can always be achieved, forexample by bartering technology or skills. The RBE could exchange some time oftheir own scientists for some new technology that it hasn't yet developed, or viceversa.

I understand that this is not the goal of the RBE as it wants to include everyone, butwhile people can make their own choice, this seems to be the only fair path ahead.

9. Douglas you almost answered my question (but not quite), with the following:"There won't be a singular someone calling the shots, as you say, but teams of
http://www.blogger.com/profile/04968228480817489654http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297702121875#c6411499927590087102http://www.blogger.com/profile/14399585433053367955http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=11241615&postID=6411499927590087102http://www.blogger.com/profile/04968228480817489654http://lightswitcher.blogspot.com/2011/02/zeitgeist-movement-questions-and-doubts.html?showComment=1297702121875#c6411499927590087102http://www.blogger.com/profile/14399585433053367955


26/30

subject matter experts will work together to ensure that whatever is built is of theutmost quality and technical capability."

We're getting warmer : )I'll ask again in a different way, what's the process by which the "subject matterexperts" are assigned?

Andrew, to give you an example of what type of decisions I'm referring to, I'llanswer with something you said on point 12:"If someone wants to hoard something all to themself, then they probably have alesser psychological disorder that can be solved, such as paranoia and low self-esteem that surfaces as attention-seeking.People's needs would be met realistically and compassionately."This statement disturbs me a bit because, who/what defines what is a

"psychological disorder"?! This appears to leave room for a lot of subjectivity,therefore the potential for corruption if not tyranny.

Likewise, how is it defined what is "realistic"?! This is precisely what I was tryingto get at when I asked: "how is calculated the amount of resources each citizen isallowed to use and how is that enforced?"

15 February, 2011 15:31

Ant. said...

10. Andrew, I understand that there would be plenty of volunteers in general, butthe question was to when there are not enough volunteers for a specific task. Wouldthis need be advertised? I'm just wondering if the RBE would still rely onmarketing to meet some of its needs? ; )

Douglas, you say "The RBE doesn't really have needs." - is this really true?! Aren'tthe RBE's needs the human needs?

"HR gaps can be solved by technical solutions." - yes, I understand it this far. So

you're saying that there is no task that a human does today that can't be done by amachine?

11. Andrew and Douglas, it is true that "people in countries with a higher standardof living always tend to have a lower birth-rate". But what is the factor thatpromotes that? Is it because people are more educated or because it's economicallychallenging to have a large family while keeping a higher standard of living?

Douglas, I like your thought of colonising other planets, but I'd hope we solve ourown planet's problems first. : )

12. Douglas said, "Now, if someone living within a RBE city (for example)demands 3 homes and 10 cars, that's plain stupid. It won't happen. They won't get


27/30

it. It will also be obvious that they don't understand what the RBE is about."

I agree, this is stupid but it is a possibility. This is why I asked, how is it defined

what the limits of wanting something are?! And who defines what is "plain stupid"?

Andrew, please refer to my answer to point 9 above (if you haven't done already).

15 February, 2011 16:06

Ant. said...

13. Andrew, I hear you.

Douglas, it is true that Micro$oft's monopoly has reached a point where people canno longer choose whether to have or not its OS pre-installed in new machines. Evenif you want to keep an older Window OS, the price of the new one is alreadyincluded in the new PC.

However, at the point that we become aware of other alternatives that meet ourneeds, it does become a matter of personal choice.

As for the lack of promotion of Linux, lets not forget that it's a volunteermovement, it is not backed with billion$ such as the monopolies. If Linux were asgood at marketing itself as the m

Zeitgeist Movement

Documents

Transcript of Zeitgeist Movement