Controversial and Thought Provoking

[johnnyb.doremi]

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

[Life of Luxury]

Not to mention erroneous, one-sided, and intentionally deceitful. I've watched it several weeks ago. Initially I was jarred by the unsettling revelations that my religion was a hoax, the federal reserve was devil incarnate, and everything else I knew was a lie. Then I did some fact checking and uncovered that Zeitgeist is very much a lie itself, making it painfully self-defeatist.

[johnnyb.doremi]

You may be right Life of Luxury. Though the first movie was misguiding, however the sequel (Addendum) is more strait-forward and focuses on the key components of the Zeitgeist Movement itself. Should the movement lose its credibility over one movie? The viewer/individual must arrive at their own conclusion and probe into such matters as you did. Perhaps this is a better place to start:
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/The%20Zeitgeist%20Movement.pdf

[kris]

I have seen the Zeitgeist movies a while back, and I found more to disagree with them than to agree.

The 9/11 "truth seekers" are just plain fruitcakes in my view. Recent attack on Pentagon employees demonstrates that such characters don't even have an inkling about how to seek truth.

As for religion, the movie makers don't understand that religion is a Western notion. In my view, it is a silly notion. Krishna never said a word about religion and yet somehow, they manage to place Krishna in the company of the so-called prophets, messiahs and messengers of God, who are so dear to the West.

I am not an economist, but I find their analysis of the monetary system overly simplistic. And they don't provide an alternative to the current system that is practical.

[johnnyb.doremi]

How is a resource-based system impractical?

[kris]

I cannot see a practical way to implement a resource based system. As I already said, I am not an economist. The burden of proof is on proponents of this system to show that it can be implemented practically. I am not sold on its practicality.

[CoyotePrime]

Interesting, the disparaging of the movie "Zeitgeist", but more so, the near ridicule of the concept that the events of 9/11 might not conform to the "official" version of the story. An objective analysis of the available information reveals any number of glaring inconsistencies: how did the 57 story Building 7 fall into it's own footprint, as did the others, when it was not damaged by an airplane strike?
At the impact point in the Pentagon wall there was a 16 foot diameter, round hole. No impact marks on adjoining windows or wall structure, no wings, fuselage, debris, bodies anywhere on the exterior, simply nothing. Did the entire plane fit through a 16 foot hole? Ridiculous in the extreme to believe so. How could the towers fall at "free fall" speed, indicating zero resistance from the heavily steel reinforced floors below? Why have significant amounts of thermate
residue, an extremely high temperature military/industrial use chemical, been found in samples of the wreckage of the buildings? Many, many more questions, all calling into doubt the "official" version of events. Comments? :think:

[johnnyb.doremi]

Let's use a Nationalized Health Care System as an example. Do you believe it should be implemented? And, could it be implemented whether you support it or not? Wouldn't it be the same as any other law passed or business started? Aren't there always risks when things are undergoing change? There are certainly always imperfections and kinks that have to be addressed and ironed out.

[MelissaTaylor]

Sorry I'm late in posting on this topic, but I just wanted to put my opinion out there:
I think at some point, people are going to realize that the monetary system is unsustainable and that the switch to a resource based economy will be necessary. With the advancements in technology and the population explosion, technology will replace human jobs (at my mom's job, they're already letting some people go and replacing them with a software program that can get the work done cheaper) and unemployment rates will skyrocket, dramatically increasing the number of people starving and suffering in the world due to lack of money. And the suffering will only be due to lack of money, not lack of resources, as it is today. As the Zeitgeist Movement and Venus Project get more recognition, and as more and more people suffer, I think that people will begin to understand that the switch to a resource based economy is the best, if not the only solution.

[Wayseeker]

I found Zeitgeist to be neither controversial nor thought-provoking, and this includes the addendum. Its content ranges from the purely speculative to the wildly inaccurate to out and out lies; many of them not even particularly new or clever lies.

I suppose the film is interesting as psychological or sociological material. It shows that there are always those who are willing to play on peoples' fears and anxieties, and a steady stream of "true believers" who are willing to follow. Those who feel their world collapsing have a desperate need to grasp onto some theory or story which makes sense of their predicament, no matter how absurd. (This is, incidentally, how cults often recruit members --- by preying on the psychologically vulnerable).

The film's popularity speaks to a widespread sense of unease, fear, and dissatisfaction with society, especially amongst Americans. People feel very strongly they are being taken of advantage of, but they do not understand how or by whom. As a result, over the last few years there have been all kinds of demagogues and movements popping up in American society to capitalize on this. Some people may tune into Glenn Beck and join the "Tea Party" movement; others turn to 9/11 conspiracy theories or to The Secret or to Zeitgeist. The movements may differ, but the underlying dynamics of fear and anger are the same.

Assuming the economic situation does not substantially improve (and in spite of some pundits' optimism, my guess is that it will not), we can probably expect to see more of these movements, perhaps accompanied by a spike in violence.

[johnnyb.doremi]

Wayseeker, if you understood the Zeitgeist Movement, you'd realize that no one is to blame and no one is out to get you. Rather, the monetary system itself is the root cause of abborant behavior in the world because it encourages corruption in all institutions that want to survive. Recall Jaques Fresco's example with the honest store owner who tells a customer that he or she can get the same lamp for a smaller price down the block. He'd be out of business. We all take part in this out of necesity.

The Zeitgeist Movement is not just American, but global, and transcends politics, since government is part of the system. It's true that some of the topics like 9/11 and religion seem out there for those new to the ideas. However, with lots of fact checking and common sense, people with realize that the sourced material does hold some water. Though it is true that groups like this "prey" on those who are vulnerable, Zeitgeist mainly focuses on people who've recently lost their job and is more concerned in raising levels of awareness, compassion and knowledge for a more sane and civilized society than it is fear and anxiety in the paranoid.

Though unfortunately you may be about the economic situation and a spike in violence, I'd like to throw out there that the movement teaches non-violence and that the most ignored violence is allowed overseas in wars driven by profit. I suggest checking these videos out when you have the time.
Why We Fight ://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9219858826421983682#
Social Pathology http://vimeo.com/10707453

[Wayseeker]

Johnny,

Wayseeker, if you understood the Zeitgeist Movement, you'd realize that no one is to blame and no one is out to get you.

I don't think I ever said that anyone is to blame or that there is anybody out to get me.

I do understand the Zeitgeist movement, we just clearly disagree on the validity of its assumptions and the significance of what it claims to reveal about the world.

For what it's worth, I do agree that the monetary system is in need of serious reform, but we can discuss this rationally without rehashing 19th century anti-Semitic theories (change "international bankers" to "Jews" or "Freemasons" and the content of the third portion of Zeitgeist is actually no different than most of the conspiracies floating around at the end of 1800s and beginning of the 1900s).

I also don't think implementing a resource based system is at all practical, unless we are also willing to talk about radically rescaling the structure of society, something that both Zeitgest and the Venus Project does not address. If we want to return to living in small bands or tribes of hunter gatherers and horticulturists, perhaps a system of bartering makes sense, but baring that I don't see how it is possible to implement on a scale much larger than that. As Kris said, the burden of proof is on the ones putting forth these ideas.

Rather than talking about this movie, why don't we start a thread discussing the problems with the monetary system and some possible solutions?

[johnnyb.doremi]

I'm sorry, you're right. You didn't say that anyone was to blame.


I also don't think implementing a resource based system is at all practical, unless we are also willing to talk about radically rescaling the structure of society, something that both Zeitgest and the Venus Project does not address.

This is where technology comes into play. (ex. hydroponics, the mile circular city) Almost everyone will live in a city so nature is more of a whole rather than scattered as with suburban and urban areas. Plus the more educated people are the less children they'll have.

Will you do the honors of starting a thread on the monetary system? Some problems you could bring up: the lack of honestly(lamp store owner ex.), how science is less objective due to scarcity of funding and how companies throw out studies the don't help their product, not being able to provide for starving people because there isn't enough money while there is enough food, the most popular phone not having as good service as lesser phones

[GantzBall]

Just like Michael Moore movies, it unfortunately mixes too many untruths with bold truths. It points out all the real dispicible factual evils yet erases all credentials by making absurd statements the next moment

[Life of Luxury]

Here are selected samples from, no doubt, a litany of factual inaccuracies present in Zeitgeist. As you can imagine, untruths such as these, on which Zeitgeist's disputatious conclusions are based, sorely detract from the movie's credibility. Once the cloak of deceit is removed, the film is easily seen as the propaganda piece it truly is.

Krishna was not of virgin birth, but the son of Vasudeva.
Attis was not of virgin birth, but the son of Agdistis.
Dionysus was not of virgin birth, but the son of Zeus.

None of the myths suggest December 25 as their birth dates.

The Bible does not purport December 25 to be Jesus' birth date. The date was selected centuries after the fact, no earlier than 273, as a day of celebration, to deliberately supplant the pagan sun feasts which shared the date.

As my good friend Wikipedia points out: "Son" and "Sun" are not homophones in Greek, Egyptian, or Latin and therefore the wordplay that exists in English would not have been present in ancient writing. That means faulty and anachronistic reasoning were the author's main tools for deriving conclusions.

Whether or not I have complaints with the monetary system is an entirely different matter. Works such as Zeitgeist might commence with reasonable questions, but quickly dive into the realms of absurdity, extremism, and antisemitism (notably among racism).

On a different note, could someone explain what is meant by a resources based economy (here or possibly in a different thread)? Is this the same as the barter system?

[MelissaTaylor]

Works such as Zeitgeist might commence with reasonable questions, but quickly dive into the realms of absurdity, extremism, and antisemitism (notably among racism).
Where the hell does it ever show antisemitism and racism? I have no idea where you got that. The Zeitgeist Movement speaks out against these things.

[MelissaTaylor]

On a different note, could someone explain what is meant by a resources based economy (here or possibly in a different thread)? Is this the same as the barter system?

Here's a description of a resource based economy on the Venus Project website:

"It is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.

A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all.

Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was No, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war.

In a resource-based economy all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth's people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative.

We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world's population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body."

You can read the full description on the Venus Project website:
http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy

[Life of Luxury]

Where the hell does it ever show antisemitism and racism? I have no idea where you got that. The Zeitgeist Movement speaks out against these things.

To clarify, works of the same caliber as Zeitgeist, i.e; dis-informational propaganda pieces. From what I saw, Zeitgeist isn't expressively racist.

[Thomas Knierim]

Unfortunately, the so-called "resource-based economy" remains extremely sketchy in the movie as well as on the web site. How exactly is this supposed to work?

Economics isn't really my strong point, but I get the impression that nobody has thought this through properly.

We don't require a 3-volume tome like Karl Marx's "Das Kapital", but a little bit of economic theory wouldn't hurt.

Cheers, Thomas

[the_aphid]

Unfortunately, the so-called "resource-based economy" remains extremely sketchy in the movie as well as on the web site.As is the nature of much of the Zeitgeist movement. As idyllic as their sentiments might be, the fact of the matter is that the current economic systems are already predominantly based upon resources, such as water, oil, precious metals, timber, fertile lands/marine ecosystems, knowledge and resulting technologies. The current flaws are hardly in the details, but rather in human susceptibilities to greed and exploitation.

For example, I wonder exactly how a "resource-based economy" would encourage people to work for 6 consecutive weeks, 12 hours every day, in the wretched oil-sands of Western Canada if they weren't receiving substantial financial compensation for their "sacrifices".

[schrodinger]

Here's a description of a resource based economy on the Venus Project website:



You can read the full description on the Venus Project website:
http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy


Sounds like communism to me. Where do we find the exceptionally wise men and women who will "administer" all these resources? Remember, under such a system both you and I are just two more "resources"! How would you like to be told by a member of the administrative party to get off your computer and go out and sweep the street? That is exactly what can happen in a resource economy!

[MelissaTaylor]

Sounds like communism to me. Where do we find the exceptionally wise men and women who will "administer" all these resources? Remember, under such a system both you and I are just two more "resources"! How would you like to be told by a member of the administrative party to get off your computer and go out and sweep the street? That is exactly what can happen in a resource economy!

Well, you didn't continue reading.

From the full description of a resource based economy on the website:
Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.

There would be no government in this system. There may be groups of people organizing things, but nobody would have authority over you. A main idea of this movement is that nobody is better than anybody else. That may sound like communism, but in communism there's a governing body telling everyone what to do, and in this system that's not the case. Most of the public doesn't realize that the level of technology that we have now is so high that most dirty jobs that nobody wants to do(along with many other jobs) could pretty much be done with machines and robots. And, without money, boring jobs that people hate (like jobs in offices, jobs that deal with money) would be gone.
People would have the time and freedom to pursue their interests.

But I agree, there's no real solid plan on how exactly this would work or how it would be put into place. I only support it because I think it's a great idea, and in theory, it's much better than the system we have now and I'm not going to just immediately disregard it.

I think the first Zeitgeist film gives the movement a horrible reputation, as it has a lot of statements that can't be backed up with factual evidence. The second film, Zeitgeist: Addendum, however, gives a much clearer view of what the movement is really all about. I recommend you guys give it a chance if you haven't seen it.

[schrodinger]

There would be no government in this system. There may be groups of people organizing things, but nobody would have authority over you.



There is a word for that too: Anarchy! And it will never work. I think you need to get your head out of the clouds and come back down to earth where doors need to be kept locked and laws need to be made and enforced. There is a reason why the systems we have now evolved, the strong will always overpower and take advantage of the weak; that's the way it is and no idealist is going to change it with a pipedream.

[Life of Luxury]

There is a word for that too: Anarchy! And it will never work. I think you need to get your head out of the clouds and come back down to earth where doors need to be kept locked and laws need to be made and enforced. There is a reason why the systems we have now evolved, the strong will always overpower and take advantage of the weak; that's the way it is and no idealist is going to change it with a pipedream.


Amen. If we could all get along and all conflict ceased, well... that isn't even worth giving a thought because it won't ever happen. Resource economy sounds noble, but unrealistic. If you want to have a talk about anarchy, I'm ready.

[Thomas Knierim]

There would be no government in this system. There may be groups of people organizing things, but nobody would have authority over you. A main idea of this movement is that nobody is better than anybody else. That may sound like communism, but in communism there's a governing body telling everyone what to do, and in this system that's not the case.

This type of government, or perhaps better: non-government, is called anarchism. It has existed as a political theory at least since the time of the French revolution, most prominently in 19th and early 20th century Europe. There are a number of important writers and pioneers of anarchism, such as William Godwin, Max Stirner, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. All of these writers have contributed ideas to anarchism that go far beyond the scope of the Venus project.

Unfortunately, there are two problems with anarchism. First, anarchists can't seem to agree about what they endorse. The only point they agree on is to abolish state authority and central government. Apart from that, there are as many different strains of anarchism as there are flowers on a tree. Some want to abolish private property, some don't. Some advocate collectivism and socialism, others advocate individualism. Some favour a meritocratic economy, some a free market economy, some a socialist economy. You get the picture.

The other problem with anarchism is that it has never been successfully implemented on a macro scale, despite there having been notable anarchist movements. For example, the anarchists and communists jointly turned over the Tsarist state in the Russian revolution, yet the anarchists were kicked out shortly after by the Bolsheviks. In Spain, the anarchists lost the fight against fascism and against Franco. In France, the anarchist movement failed to assert itself despite a 200-years tradition and despite several historical opportunities.

Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that anarchism does not work on the scale of nations. Due to its inherent rejection of authority and leadership, it is not able to compete against movements that emphasise strong authority and leadership. I am afraid it simply comes down to survival of the strongest, and history has shown that the latter systems are better equipped for political survival, even if these turned out to be itself flawed and vile, like Stalinism in Russia, or fascism in Europe.

Cheers, Thomas

[the_aphid]

First, anarchists can't seem to agree about what they endorse. The only point they agree on is to abolish state authority and central government. Apart from that, there are as many different strains of anarchism as there are flowers on a tree. Some want to abolish private property, some don't. Some advocate collectivism and socialism, others advocate individualism. Some favour a meritocratic economy, some a free market economy, some a socialist economy. You get the picture.Chomsky addresses precisely this point in a Q&A for reddit.com, available here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke6YXjaZ9HY). I imagine this is why Chomsky steers slightly more towards libertarianism, recognizing the necessity for leadership in order to mount any revolutionary social system. As he has said frequently "abolishment of the state is not a solution."

[carcharanon]

Amen. If we could all get along and all conflict ceased, well... that isn't even worth giving a thought because it won't ever happen. Resource economy sounds noble, but unrealistic. If you want to have a talk about anarchy, I'm ready.

Would have liked to include Shrodinger's quote here too. Just a right-wing comment of my own to add: government is not a solution nor replacement for individual responsibility. I make that comment as a "proposition" open for consideration.

I visited Moscow after the beginning of the conversion to capitalism. On a bus (standing, as I felt appropriate for a foreigner) I saw an elderly man, very fit, looking quite robust, looking out the window for a few moments, surveying what were no doubt many recent changes in the vista, then turning his gaze back into the bus with an expression that said, "All my life, I worked for ... what?!" All he had worked for, all the sacrifices he made, were for nought. It struck me that change in a society is not made by changing government, but by somehow improving individuals. I really would have liked to have somehow told the man that, but that would have been about as welcome as a swim suit at a black tie party.

Just yesterday, I read four interviews of Afghanis. It amazed me to gain some insight into what I saw as at the least anger, at the worst hatred and open hostility, but real confusion. Thinking it over, it strikes me that the level of "living" over there is what we would call incredibly harsh, and the only thing abundant is scarcity. In that light, the guys interviewed were actually doing very well just to respond to the subject. If those four represent thought in Afghanistan, it may be at least a generation before the consensus level comes around to what we in the West would refer to as sane. It's hard to blame someone who has grown up used to bullets and hunger and bombs.

We enjoy a high standard of living here. Our supermarkets are full. We sleep peacefully at night. I don't claim to understand the USA, but it seems to me that we enjoy all this by some virtue of not being willing to take abuse (to use a polite term). A Russian friend I met here put it very well: "People in Russia and around the world think the streets are paved with gold here (USA), and they are! But what they don't realize is that you have to work like hell for it!" The generation born in the early 1900's saw times and conditions that would today put most of us into a state of utter panic: the collapse of the stock market, no Fed to bail the financial system out, soup kitchens, bread lines, NYC turning the lights on at noon because the black clouds blowing in from the dying heartland farms made it impossible to see, and then, just to add icing on the cake, a true raving lunatic bent on world destruction sending tanks into Poland and France, leading to the carnage of WW II. The population muscled up and threw its weight into winning WW II, then was delighted to have a 1,700sf house to live in. Yet today the industrialized nations seem to be swimming in money borrowed for immediate gratification, public and private. It is perhaps harder to see one's own country from the inside than it is to see another country from the outside, but it bothers me to think that the level of individual responsibility here in the USA may be dropping.

I offer the above three examples as my viewpoints on possible examples of the responsibility levels of individuals in three population at large. We all look to ideas for leadership, but which ideas we choose depend on our views of those ideas, on our perceptions, and the best ideas ever to come down the pike encourage individual responsibility. I do not see faults with the "system" of capitalism, but I wonder, if my paycheck had eight digits, would I buy a $75,000 dollar wastepaper basket? I hope not. If I felt I was not getting my fair share, would I be willing to advocate socialism? I hope not. A Swedish woman I met in California asked, "Do you know what a communist is?" I shrugged. "A failed capitalist!" I hope not. But what is a failed communist?

Carcha.

[johnnyb.doremi]

I haven't been on in a while. I want to thank all of you who have kept this discussion going. We have all brought up good points and concerns, but we must not allow our emotions to bias us or make us verbally hostile. Everyone has different and unique life experiences and wisdom, yet we all have good intentions. We are just trying to arrive at the "truth".

First off, I think we have established that the first Zeitgeist movie is full of many false ideas as with the logical example of Son and Sun have no similar translation into other languages. Zeitgeist movie 1 was a completely independent project done by Peter Joseph, who'd still probably suggest the everything is factual if you asked him. His goal from marketing background perspect: any publicity is good publicity. However it wasn't the best first impression. And the worst part is he masterfully and too creatively maniplated our emotions with fear. As my friend defines FEAR: False Evidence Appearing Real.

Yet this publicity got him the attention of Jaques Fresco of the Venus Project, who met with Peter and steered him in the right direction after discussing his philosphy and life work. This direction is where the second movie and the movement have taken off. The movement's goals: Clean air and water, nutritious food, material abundance, fast, clean, and efficient transportation,
relevant education, public health care, the end of war, personal liberty, an environment that enables us to constantly improve our abilities, human extensionality, reduced stress, and reduced crime. We all know that nothing is perfect, but none of these goals will ever come close being realized under the current systems.

Is a resource-based economy communism? No, for there is no exchange of money and no bartering. It is a system of giving and contributing to society as you see fit. All production will be automated by machines and resources amounts will be kept track of via a computer much like your ink cartrage monitor. People will have more free time to learn and their work will be to make the automated systems more efficient and find alternative solutions to resource sarcities. No one will be enslaved to work 12 hours digging up Canadian oil-sands.

Is a resource-based society an anarchy? Yes, in the simplist definition of no government. People will be so highly educated as to take others and the environment into consideration. Most decisions such as new production and building will be made via a central computer. When abberant behavior arises, the community will take matters into their own hands getting the disturbed individuals the help they need.

The mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work unless it's open. But it has to open the first time! A resource-based economy is a new idea that has never been tested. Monetary systems however have been tested for a LONG time and have yielded many good results, but also just as many horrific ones. Let's try to understand this matter better before ruling it out. I suggest starting with the orientation guides:
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/The%20Zeitgeist%20Movement.pdf
http://www.thevenusproject.com/images/stories/a-designingthefuturee-book.pdf
Then listen to some of the Zeitgeist Movement podcasts which entail huge Q&A sessions and watch some of Jaques Fresco's interviews.

As Thomas would say... Cheers!
Johnny B.

[schrodinger]

I haven't been on in a while. I want to thank all of you who have kept this discussion going. We have all brought up good points and concerns, but we must not allow our emotions to bias us or make us verbally hostile. Everyone has different and unique life experiences and wisdom, yet we all have good intentions. We are just trying to arrive at the "truth".

The mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work unless it's open. But it has to open the first time! A resource-based economy is a new idea that has never been tested. Monetary systems however have been tested for a LONG time and have yielded many good results, but also just as many horrific ones. Let's try to understand this matter better before ruling it out.



I have not seen any hostility here, would you care to point it out? I for one have examined this with an open mind and I conclude that it is totally unworkable and an idealistic pipedream.

[carcharanon]

Johnny B. -

I think the answers to "world problems" are within individuals. To improve worlds, improve individuals. Problems do not arise from systems, but from individuals within those systems. The improvement of individuals is the subject of religion and philosophy and the focus has been on understanding the nature of life (or existence, or whatever). The (sound) idea is that if an accurate delineation of life were available, and individual could conceivably understand it and function along those lines.

The problems with life and with government of societies and civilizations is the square peg in the round hole: there are some who do not fit in as individuals. Unhappy with themselves, unhappy with others, some simply oppose rather than support or placidly coexist. An understanding of life would include an understanding of what goes wrong with individuals. It includes high randomity and things that are difficult to find comfort with, such as evil, but it also includes good.

The goals above are all well and good, but I somehow doubt they are new and revolutionary. The system we have now, evolved out of trial and error, or for the botanists and geneticists amongst us, out of natural evolution - kind of like plants and trees and fuzzy little kittens we all love and feed, and the "wilderness and quality of life" we seek to preserve. And like big cats, it also kills things. And somehow, things stay in balance.

Most of us are good, we work hard, and we're right much of the time. We appreciate others, we're social, reasonably well adjusted (even if a little wierd sometimes), and we place a lot of emphasis on forming and nurturing families and kids in a clean and at least acceptable environment. The standards of living we enjoy are unprecedented. If anything, we've reached a point where we have surplus that we don't exactly know what to do with, and that's one of our challenges. We don't face physical challenges as much as psychological challenges. Many of us do not get credit for all we do, and it would be nicer if we did. Many of us are under-appreciated in this fast-pace world. It's a personal thing, and not hard to remedy. We also have to keep our eyes open and stop the bad guys who would disrupt everything for their personal gain. nd there are bad guys.

Perhaps we should understand the monetary system (which has evolved over thousands of years from the time towns were first settled), before ruling it out?

I really liked Peter Seller's comedy. As Chauncey Gardener might say, "The sod is laid down, watered, and growing. It is very green."

Carcha.

[johnnyb.doremi]

Socratic conversation—discussing this in the style of philosophers with hypothetical conversations and monologues.
Introducing A: a Zeitgeist Movement member who has read Fresco's work, seen the movie, studied the lectures, heard all the radio broadcasts, contributes to the website and engaged in many discussions with people.
Introducing Q: his eyebrow-raising, interested but doubting father. A scientist, but a man who has never heard such bold ideas before, and highly doubting by default.
http://docs.google.com/leafid=0B0ahvKrXssYaYzAxNWFiODctNjI4OC00Y2NkLWFlZT YtOTAxYmY5MTFkYjk0&hl=en