Peter Joseph – Where Are We Going?

Peter Joseph – Where Are We Going?


The title of this presentation
is “Where Are We Going?” This is actually the second
part in a two-part series. The first one was done in London,
called “Where Are We Now?” which dealt with the financial system and
other attributes you might be familiar with if you follow the work that I
do with The Zeitgeist Movement which is the activist
and communication arm of another organization
called The Venus Project. More on these organisations
as we go along. Part 1: Evolutionary Baggage Roughly 10,000 years
ago the human species stumbled into a new
social paradigm which is now referred to as
the “Neolithic Revolution”. During this time, it appears
we began a transition from predominantly
egalitarian societies consisting of hunters
and gatherers to an agricultural revolution where
deliberate cultivation of food replaced the more passive
finding of food sources hence allowing for much more
control over production. At the same time, there also
seems to be a major push in the advancement of what
we call “technology” today. Stone tools were advancing which eventually
set the trend for the Bronze Age which used the forging of
more malleable copper. And then [came] the Iron Age
which enabled more strength and so on.
I think we know all these patterns. Since this period, we can
look back and recognize a constantly increasing rate
of technological development. In fact, it appears to be
an exponential increase. This graph here,
made by Ray Kurzweil shows an exponential increase
in the mass use of inventions specifically communication
and computer technology. Next to it is another chart which shows
a history of technological invention and the amazing rate of
progress in general. I think it is safe to say that
this evolution of technology and hence science itself has
been and continues to be the fundamental catalyst
for progress and change. It is by far the primary factor driving
the development of human civilization not only in the facilitation
of achieving specific ends but also in the more subtle manifestation
of our belief systems, philosophy frames of reference and essentially
how we interpret the world around us. The scientific method itself is
a form of technological tool and its application has continually
advanced our understanding of the world around us,
facilitating constant change. Unfortunately, cultural beliefs
(beliefs that we all share traditions) are very
rarely in tandem with the socially progressive
nature of science and technology. This is termed “culture lag”. This stems from social identifications
with existing traditional values and established
institutional practices. These emotional identifications and I apologize for this graphic,
but I couldn’t resist. These emotional identifications
are a source of comfort for us. In fact, I have an anecdote.
When I was coming here from the airport I saw the Amish.
They evidently live near by and they were driving on the street.
It was night time. What did they have? They had electric lights
on their horse and buggy. I’m like “Hey! That’s cheating!” The thing is that it’s really difficult
for any traditional establishment to really keep moving forward
without eventually giving in to the beauty of the advancement of
technology and what it can do for us. As a classic example
of this phenomenon which I’m sure many of
you have heard before was when the Italian
physicist/astronomer Galileo first presented evidence to the political
institution of his time and region regarding the earth
revolving around the sun. He was met with deep threat and
deep opposition by the political religious establishment, for
it was very much contrary to their religious texts and hence
traditional identifications. In fact the Inquisition banned the
reprinting of Galileo’s works for 76 years after his death. The reality is, institutional
establishments meaning institutions of both
traditional codified thought and institutions with
societal influence and power meaning philosophy
dogmas on one hand and corporations and
governments on the other each have a high propensity
to engage in denial dishonesty and corruption to
maintain self-preservation and self-perpetuation. The result is a
continuous culture lag where social progress by
way of incorporating new socially helpful scientific
advancements is constantly inhibited. It is like walking
through a brick wall as the established power orthodoxies
continue to perpetuate themselves for their own interests
and comforts. To illustrate this phenomenon
in a modern context let’s examine one of the oldest
established orders still in use today the monetary system. When I say the monetary system, I
don’t mean native monetary policy interest rates, the
fractional reserve policy central banks or any other
component attribute. I refer to the absolute
foundation of the concept being a system of incentive,
aquisition, and exchange. So first, let’s ask the
most fundamental question. Why did we invent money? Contrary to the attitudes of most
of the world’s population today money is not a natural resource nor does it represent resources. Money is actually a social
convention for managing scarcity and rewarding creation. If a person grows a food
product on a plot of land that product is given a value: 1) Based on how scarce the
product is in the region hence the level of
demand versus supply. 2) Along with the amount of labor and
time spent to produce that product. Generally speaking, if a product
is rare in this society then its value is raised. If the skill set needed by a
person to cultivate that product is also rare in the community, then
the value is increased as well. This is the basic theory of value,
which you’ll hear in Economics 101. As innocuous as this may
seem on the surface let’s now consider
some of the unspoken negative retroactions of this system;
namely, the profit mechanism and its relationship to
establishment preservation. Very simply, problems and
scarcity equals profit. Socially negative
attributes of society become positively rewarded
ventures for industry. The more problems and scarcity
there is the more money that can be made off of
attempts at solutions. The more efficiency
created in society the less opportunities for
monetary acquisition. Think about this. In other words and this might sound rather
pessimistic and abrupt but there is very little intrinsic
reward, and hence motivation to solve any currently
profitable problem in existence. The very nature of monetary
reinforcement condones the perpetuation of problems. For example, energy is the
corner stone of our society. You would think that scarce and depleted oil supplies
which is a common speculation at this point in
time, “peak oil” would be a dire concern, given
our current social dependence posing nothing but
negative connotations. No, not in the short term. There is nothing the oil companies
want more than consistant scarcity. The 2007/2008 speculative bubble
in oil which shut down schools school buses and caused immense
hardship for the lower classes for both home heating and
transportation, is a classic example. If oil companies know that
they can make more money by having their items
scarce, the propensity to deliberately limit production
and disregard social concern or simply be dishonest outright
about available resources is very high. The same goes, unfortunately, for
every other socially dire problem such as environmental pollution. The more polluted our water
tables and taps become the more industry can compensate
by offering profitable solutions. This creates a perverse
reinforcement of indifference to environmental
concern by industry for the more damage there is, the
more money that can be made. It is simply how the
game is set up. And the psychological ramifications
are sick and profound. Let’s consider the
medical industry which should be one of
the most altruistic and progressive
institutions we have as our quality of life
often depends on it. However, we need to realize
the simple reality that the medical establishment
with its millions of employees thrives off of the sickness
of the population. The more problems solved
in the realm of disease the less money that
can be generated. For example, [there’s]
the cancer industry. This is a massive, multi-billion
dollar a year industry a trillion dollar industry with a very
large number of people in employment. Suppose for a moment, hypothetically,
that a cure for all cancers was somehow achieved, and
the method of treatment was simple and easy.
In other words, there was no longer a way to make all this money off of the
illness by the medical establishment. Do you realize what would
happen to the economy to the medical institutions,
if that particular problem was actually given
a viable solution? And, when you realize that, do
you really think that the intent is to cure this illness? It’s something to think about. And it would also lay off
tens of thousands of people. I mean, keep in mind
it’s an establishment. The moment you have
employees and everything and even if you’re working
initially for an altruistic cause the moment you’re in the
position of supporting a group and the group relying
on the institution suddenly, motivations change. As another example, what
if a company made a car that could last 80
years without service and also runs without the
need for perpetual refueling through battery technology? The after-market value of that
car would be virtually zero and billions of dollars would
be lost due to the now obsolete consumer oil and auto
service market industries. I’m sure many of you know that
we have the technology now to create electric cars that can go 80 mph for a
thousand miles on one charge. You might also know as a case
in point that the White House during the Bush administration which
was, in fact, the oil cartel in power made sure their corporate
constituents in the oil industry were safeguarded against
this new reality by helping to just get rid of
the idea itself, squashing it. In fact, there is no reason
why every single car sold could not be electric right now.
They aren’t because social progress
and human well-being is always second
to monetary gain. I’ll say that again.
Social progress and human well-being is always second
to monetary gain. Also, if people cannot make money
off of solving social problems they simply will not be done. Take a look at the horrid,
dire destitution in Africa or simply the rampant and growing
homelessness across the world. I think George Carlin
actually put it best. “Have you ever noticed that
the only metaphor we have in our public discourse for solving
problems is to declare war on it? We have the war on crime, the war
on cancer, the war on drugs. But did you ever notice that we
have no war on homelessness? You know why? Because there’s
no money in that problem. No money to be made
off of the homeless. If you can find a solution to
homelessness where the corporations and politicians can make a
few million dollars each you will see the streets of America
begin to clear up pretty damn quick!” Most when they think about
these kinds of things the word “corruption”
comes to mind. Most feel that these
are ethical issues. But, it is really corrupt
for an energy establishment to want to limit supply,
artificially so they can make money? Is it really corrupt
for a company to seek indifferent self-preservation at
the expense of social progress? Actually no, it isn’t.
It is simply “business as usual”. And this is what I’m
trying to point out. And you should expect nothing
less than this tendency. The profit mechanism
creates established orders which constitute the survival and
wealth of large groups of people. The fact is, no matter how socially
beneficial new advents may be they will be viewed in hostility
if they threaten an established financially-driven institution meaning social progress can actually
be a threat to the establishment. To put it into a
sentence: Abundance sustainability and efficiency
are the enemies of profit. Progressive advancement in science
and technology which can solve problems of inefficiency and scarcity
once and for all are, in effect making the prior establishment’s
servicing of those issues obsolete. Therefore, in a monetary system corporations are not just in
competition with other corporations they are in competition
with progress itself. That is why social change is so
difficult within a monetary system. In other words, the
established monetary system refuses free flowing change. You really cannot have
a social convention where money is made off of
inefficiency and scarcity and expect a quick
incorporation of new advents which can relieve
those problems. I know I’m drilling this in,
but most do not see this and I want to make sure
it is perfectly clear. I don’t want to spend too much
time on the monetary system because as I mentioned, it was the
focus of a prior presentation. However, I would like to quickly
point out two important issues. The first is the economic reality that
the entire global economic system is based on what I call
“cyclical consumption”. The only way the system can work is
if money is perpetually circulating. Money must be continuously transferred
from one party to another in order to sustain the
so-called “economic growth”. This is done through constant
or cyclical consumption by virtually
everyone in society. Jobs are entirely contingent upon
demand for production in some form. If there was no demand for goods and
services then there would be no demand for labor and financial
circulation would hence stop. What this translates into again is
that inefficiency equals profit. The entire system demands
problems for it to work. This is not only paralyzing
as we have discussed but it also creates outrageous
amounts of resource waste irrelevancy and extremity. The second point I would like to make
on this issue, which is much more broad has to do with the holistic
nature of the monetary game in historical practice and
the fundamental intent. All societies today, whether
termed capitalist or socialist or even communist are
fundamentally based on money. Money is the enabler of possibility
within the system itself. Free market capitalism
as it is often called is now the dominant economic
religion of the day. I say religion, because when it
comes to the cultural perception of this methodology, few today
seem to have the ability to even ponder any other
options for social operation. They are fully indoctrinated.
The free market in practice can be defined as: A market
in which supply and demand are unregulated except by a
country’s competition policy and rights and physical and
intellectual property are upheld. You’ll notice it says
“Unregulated, except by the country’s
competition policy.” In other words, there is no such
thing as a pure free market. I know most of us know this,
but I want to make the point for nor could there ever be such
a thing as a pure free market without the system despotically
self-destructing beyond repair. Why? Because the basis of
the free market pursuit meaning the self-interest
based pursuit and strategic acquisition
of market share (the gaming strategy) can only
lead to monopolies and cartels. That is the basis of
the entire motivation and it’s funny how economists
today will deny that up and down. For example, let’s say I want
to open an electronics store in a relatively small town.
Say here in Fairfield, Iowa and at that time there are three
other stores in this same area and therefore, I have
to compete with them. As time moves forward, I work to
streamline my competitive strategies and reduce overhead in such a way
that my store becomes the dominant most affordable distributor
of a certain set of items. And everyone in the town flocks to my
store, over the others, for such items. Due to this, two of the
other three stores go out of business
and leave town. So at that point
it’s just my store and the other competitor in
the region: dual competition. Since my profits have been so good,
I make an executive decision. I decide to attempt
to acquire or buy the other competing
store in town. Seems reasonable, right?
Acquisitions happen all the time. And they agree.
So I purchase that store put my logo on it and boom!
I have a regional monopoly. Likewise, let’s assume I didn’t
purchase the other store but rather just become friends
and in turn partners with them and we figure out a way to
work together and flourish in a non-competitive way.
Seems logical, right? Well, guess what?
Now I have a cartel. In other words, business is based,
in part, on a gaming strategy to win market share
and hence profit; therefore, it is a
natural gravitation to seek dominance in
your sector or industry and the highest level
is monopoly and cartel. It is a natural progression
of the free market system to become as dominant and
powerful as possible but it doesn’t stop there.
And I’m sure most in this room understand the practice of
congressional lobbying by corporations considered absolutely normal.
What is financial lobbying? Lobbying is the
prostitution of the state to grant further powers or positions
of ease to corporate industries. In other words, if you pay off
a few congressmen to support your company’s agenda, then
you have further secured your position economically.
The same thing goes for campaign contributions. Now people say
that’s corruption. No, it’s not.
It’s the free market at work. What else do you expect?
There is no such thing as an objective government
in a monetary system. It is impossible.
The whole society is based on money and
income, so why do you think any lines would ever be
drawn and respected? We see this BS ethic argument
all day long, and guess what it has never worked,
it never will work. Influence and hence corruption is a
natural by-product of our system. It should be expected. In fact, let’s take this train
of thought even further. Throughout history there has
been one empire after another each working to secure global
land and resource domination. The central reason for
war is for resources profit, empire power
and trade monopolies. Governments are fundamentally
no different in function than corporations when it
comes to self-interest. The United States’ invasion
of Iraq could be considered a hostile corporate
take-over in effect for even the most naive
individuals today know it had nothing to do with weapons,
freedom or democracy for the people. I don’t even want to belabor that
issue for it’s just considered passe to even talk about it.
It’s not even in style. We’re so used to this
level of corruption that we just look the
other way these days. However, I do want to clearly
point out what war really has to do with, if you
have any inhibitions. It is for the conquering of
resources, industrial profit and empire expansion
fundamentally. In the words of two-time Congressional
Medal of Honor recipient Major General Smedley D.
Butler “War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the
oldest, easily the most profitable surely the most vicious.
It is the only one international in scope. And it is the only one where the
profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.” It’s important to point out that today the pursuit of
profit in the market system is generating a different
form of empire a corporate empire based on merging economies
through trade agreements. It’s called “Globalisation”. I think Jim Garrison, President
of the State of the World Forum put it quite succinctly “Taken cumulatively, the integration
of the world as a whole particularly in terms of
economic globalization and the mythic qualities of
“free market” capitalism represents a veritable
“empire” in its own right. Few have been able to escape
the “structural adjustments” and “conditionalities” of the World
Bank, the International Monetary Fund or the arbitrations of the
World Trade Organization those international financial
institutions that, however inadequate still determine what economic
globalization means. Such is the power of globalization
that within our lifetime we are likely to see the
integration, even if unevenly of all national economies in
the world into a single global free market system.
” Hence empire. To put it gesturally, the
propensity of this system is to create world monopoly. That is the gestural,
natural gravitation of the methodology and philosophy
of the free market ideology itself. That is what the psychology sets up.
I hope that’s clear. It is based on strategic
domination and I think it’s time people finally awakened to this.
It isn’t based on freedom. It’s based on conquering. The core basis of social functionality
in our society is inherently despotic. There is no such thing as
an ethical transaction. Ethics and competition
are incompatible for the basis of seeking differential
advantage for personal gain is wholly unethical
in any civilization leading perpetually to
conflict and exploitation. Dishonesty is the mode of
operation at every level whether you realize it or not.
And frankly how anyone in their right
mind could ever rationalize that a balanced, peaceful,
sustainable and productive world could ever come out of open
competition, hence open warfare from individuals competing
against each other for work to corporations battling against
each other for market share to governments competing against each
other for global economic dominance is beyond me. We live in a paralizing,
detachment-promoting self-serving system which generates
parasites and prostitutes. Each one of us, due to the very
nature of the monetary game is forced into a
position of submission either to an employer
or a client. The basic goal is
monetary acquisition not service to social progress. We leech and exploit.
Sadly, the only cooperation you’ll tend to find these days or actually ever since
the system was created was when there was
a common enemy meaning when a particular group
works to fight against another. hence one corporation working to
fight against another corporation. Advantage is dishonesty. I hope everyone thoroughly
understands that. Moving on I would like to address some other
culturally common attributes of modern society both
institutional and ideological which are rarely thought
about in a holistic sense. This is going to be a little bit
abstract, but I would like to show how the integrity of these current
conventions are either outdated polluted by the monetary
system and self-interest or are simply ignoring the
root causes of the problems which these conventions
are attempting to solve. The 4 points are: 1) Laws, rights and
paper proclamations 2) Security 3) Government as we
know it today, and 4) Activism and
so-called “ethics” Laws, rights and
paper proclamations In society today, government
attempts to control human behavior by way of threat in
the form of laws. Little regard is given to
the reasoning behind causes for these so-called criminal
acts or socially offensive acts. If a person is arrested for stealing,
very little regard is given to the environmental
conditions that generated the interest to steal to
begin with, the motivation. Is a mother who steals food to feed
her starving family a criminal? No, she’s simply doing
what she has to do. When we reflect on this reality,
that we as human beings are really nothing more and
nothing less than animals and operate with the same basic
behavioral reinforcement (sorry for this graphic, but I had
to use it to make the comparison) the fact is we operate with the same
basic behavioral reinforcements survival tendencies as
most other species. We see then that it is
illogical and irresponsable to consider any human
behavior outside of the realm of the social condition. In the early 90’s, a study was done
called “The Merva Fowles” study which found that a 1% rise in
unemployment in major US cities resulted in a relatively
substantial increase in crime. This shows how so-called
“criminal” behavior is directly related to the
socio-economic circumstances. It should be no surprise that the
great majority of people in prisons come from deprived
socio-economic positions. Society is producing
the behavior particularly scarcity,
if you pay attention. And year after year, the number
of people in prison rises along with the number
of laws on the books. Therefore, obviously something
isn’t working right. Something is not working.
Something is wrong. If society was progressively
managed with the intent of collective human well-being then we should be seeing
a constant decrease in crime and prison populations,
a decrease in laws. In fact, the goal of a
productive, stabilizing society would be the intent to eliminate
the need for prisons, police and everything we have
just mentioned altogether. I think Lisa Simpson
put it best. – And that’s the drunk tank.
And this is Mommy’s desk. – Mom, I know your intentions
are good but aren’t the police a protective force that maintains the
status quo for the wealthy elite? Don’t you think we ought to attack
the roots of social problems instead of jamming people
into overcrowded prisons? -Look Lisa!
It’s McGriff, the crime dog! This brings us to the
concept of security now. Since 9/11, security
measures across the world have gone berserk
with irrationality. The public at large, especially in
America, is now neurotically obsessed with security. The solution to violent human
behavior is evidently more police more cameras and less
freedom and liberty. I hate to break it to everybody but if somebody really
wants to kill you or blow up an airplane,
blow up a shopping mall or do anything they want,
essentially in the form of violence release toxic gas in the subway they will find a way to do it. No form of security
will ever stop that therefore the logic is wrong. It is impossible, and the whole
basis of security as we know it is the absolute reverse
of the application that’s required to solve
these types of issues. True security comes from
solving social problems addressing the
environment, the reasons for the neuroses and
distortion of the human being. This is a chart covering
the last 200 years. The Y-axis shows life expectancy and the X-axis shows income
adjusted for inflation. Each bubble is a country. The size shows the population and
the color shows the continent. The key is in the top
right-hand corner. You will notice that in
1800, life expectancy was under 40 years of
age in all countries and income was less than $3000. Now, what I want you to pay attention
to is the trend of disparity particularly in income as we
view this chart through time. You will notice that life
expectancy has basically risen along with wealth in general,
but what do we see mostly? What do we see, what stands out? We see a tremendous and
growing economic disparity. Africa, for example, is
just left in the dust by the Western nations. We went from this, to this. Economic disparity is obviously growing.
Now why am I bringing this up? There is some research that’s
been done by a few parties. One being Richard Wilkinson, of the
University of Nottingham in the UK which has shown a strong correlation
between crime and income inequality not absolute income,
but inequality itself. It’s psychological.
For example, in the United States which has the largest
income gap in the world. (Of course, we’re also the
wealthiest in the world.) I wonder why we have the largest
prison population in the world. Why is there so much distortion? It’s possibly because of this
tremendous, economic stratification. Here is the chart showing
the growing disparity divided into the upper
and lower classes. While the lower classes
stay poor on average the gap between them and
the upper middle classes continues to grow extensively. I believe this is the basic
source of the increase in crime across this
planet holistically. There seems to be a correlation
between growing disparity and prison population
and hence crime. The more income inequality,
the more crime. It comes from what some people refer
to as “psycho-social stress”. Coming back to my original
point, when it comes to the concept of security, I think
one of the most important things we should be considering is
reducing the global income gap. In other words, I think that the more
this inequality in the world grows the more world conflicts that
will arise on multiple levels. Now we’re going to move on
to paper proclamations. Today we use paper
proclamations, as we call them to denote a person’s
so-called rights. And just like laws, they
are culturally biased artificial concoctions, which attempt
to solve reoccurring problems by simply declaring something
with words on paper usually. Rights, infact, have been
invented to protect ourselves from the negative by-products
of the social system itself. And once again, instead of seeking
a true solution to a problem we invent these patches by
way of paper proclamations in an attempt to resolve them. This does not work.
It has never worked. There is really no such thing
as an unalienable right outside of the culture
in which it is assumed. We are making this up! Therefore, liberties need to be
inherent in a social system by design not alluded to
ambiguously on paper. As a classic example of this, let’s
take the notion of divine law the famed Ten Commandments:
“Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not murder”. Why? These are surface
notion cop-outs created by men who didn’t
have any real information who did not understand that we live
in a cause-and-effect reality. Telling people this does virtually
nothing, as history has proven. Morality is an empty idea that
has no empirical referent. An intelligent commandment
would be something like: “Thou shalt continually
re-orient thyself and society to reduce reactionary propensities
that lead to aberrated consequences such as stealing and murder.” (The gospel of Peter Joseph) [applause] The same surface irrelevancy
applies to any Constitution or Bill of Rights of any
country on this planet. In the Bill of Rights of the United
States, there is an attempt to secure certain freedoms and protections by
way again of mere text on paper. Now, while I understand the
value of this document and the temporal brilliance of it in the
context of the period of its creation that does not excuse the
fact that it is a product of social inefficiency
and nothing more. In other words, declarations
of laws and rights are actually an acknowledgment of
failures of the social design. There are many people today in the so-called
“Patriot” and “Liberty” movements. I know many people like this.
I’m a fan of many people who are proponents of this, in part,
because I think there’s a place for it. But this document is not
the “savior” of America. Some people seem to believe that the United States had some magical
position at one point or another perhaps where we slaughtered all the
Mexicans and Indians to steal the land or the fact that when the
Constitution was written, only white property owning males which was
about 10% of the whole population of the nation, could
actually vote. This is government
by the people? Moving on. Let me demonstrate
what I’m talking about here. The Fourth Amendment
details how people have “Protection from unreasonable
searches and seizures”. This statement is basically
qualified by the termed notion of “probable cause”
in the amendment. What is “probable cause”? The only way to figure this out is
to find a legal working definition that is culturally accepted. A common definiton of probable
cause in this context is: A reasonable belief that a
person has committed a crime. So the qualifier is now
reasonable, right? Reasonable: This is
often defined as “fair” not excessive or extreme. Then I guess we have to move
on to the word “excessive”. You see my point, I hope. It is meaningless semantically,
therefore it cannot be trusted. None of them can. In other words, legal
definitions are not empirical. All the amendments are subject
to the whims of interpretation which is why they are
abused by the police Homeland Security and the
IRS on a daily basis. Therefore, back to
my original point: There is no such thing as rights as the reference can
be altered at will. The Fourth Amendment is an
attempt to protect people from State power abuse.
That is clear. But it avoids the real
issue, and that is: Why would the state have an interest
to search and seize to begin with? How do you remove the mechanisms
that generate such behavior? We need to focus
on the real cause. To be clear again, I’m not
saying that laws, rights are not needed at this time.
They certainly are but we need to hone our focus to
resolving the actual problem. And by the way, for all the
nationalists out there I am not attacking the US
Constitution once again. However, it is not the answer
and it’s naive to think that this document really
has that much relevance. Again, I am a fan of people like
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. I believe there’s a place
for the work that they do but it’s not the answer. The history of America is just like
the history of any other country on this planet. It is a history of
deception, fraud and corruption. There is nothing to return to for the integrity was never
there to begin with. We must move forward,
not backwards. And this brings
us to government. All governments in existence today,
whether you recognize it or not are institutional dictatorships. They are publicly
sanctioned power monopolies and democracy as it is practiced today
is simply a game that is played. I’m sorry, but it’s simply
a game that’s played to give the public the
illusion of control. [applause] People think they have
choice in our current system because they can press a
button on a voting machine and put a pre-selected
person into power. However, once that
person is in power the public then has
virtually no say. Did you vote for the bank bailout?
[No] Did you vote for the cabinet
of a new president? Did you vote for
the tax increase? Do you vote for where highways, power
grids or any infrastructure goes? Did you vote for the wars in
Afganistan and Iraq? [No, we didn’t] So where is your
real participation? In Part Three, we will discuss how a
true democracy actually would work and it’s not the election of people.
It’s the election of ideas. We have to understand the
government as we know it today is not in place for the
well-being of the public but rather for the perpetuation of
their establishment and their power just like every other institution
within a monetary system. Government is a monetary invention
for the sake of economic and social control.
Its methods are based on self-preservation,
first and foremost. All the government can really
do is create laws to compensate for an inherent lack of
integrity in the social order. It’s also worth pointing out that
most politicians are lawyers. Most players in goverment
come from the world of law. And in reality they have
absolutely no real education or understanding about the true
foundation of social operation. Can a lawyer come fix
your home heating system? Can a lawyer go and organize a power
grid for a particular area? No. Lawyers and hence polititians,
are simply not trained in any tangible way to
solve real problems. They’re trained to solve
artificial, nonsensical problems that are culminated by-products
of our nonsensical society. In other words, society is in
fact a technical creation. I’ll say that again.
Society is a technical creation consisting of infrastructure,
resources and management. Society is a
technological construct. Republican, Democrat, it
doesn’t mean a damn thing. If you really want to see
a society that works you have to begin to realize
that science and technology is the overarching
element that governs the entire mechanism
of social organization and therefore, those who study
those attributes should be given not control, but should be given
the forefront to participation. Forefront of influence to
say “We can feed and clothe all the impoverished people in
Africa and in the third world”. We can technically do it”.
But unfortunately they go to their corporate bureaucracy,
and hence, government bureaucracy and the governments say “We
don’t have the money for that.” The question has never been
“Do we have the money?” The question has always been
“Do we have the resources and technological know-how?” Now, the final issue I would
like to cover in this section has to do with activism and the
traditional patterns of activism we have seen historically
across the world. In the world today, there are
countless well-intentioned people and activist organizations making a lot
of noise about the rampant problems and injustices in our world. Yet unfortunately,
as you tend to find very few offer any real,
tangible long-term solutions. Those that do offer
solutions, however almost universally
frame those solutions within the pre-existing
social establishment. Their tactics tend to involve
new legislation, and of course they always demand ethics
and accountability. Very little regard is given to the
root structure of our system. Battling and protesting corrupt corporate organizations
and seeking money from society in an attempt to curtail such trends
is a typical path that is taken. It is a very respectable
path in general. However, it is not going to
create long-term change. I’m nothing but pleased to
see something like this but does that
really do anything? When it comes to social corruption,
poverty, environmental disregard human exploitation and most personal
and social turmoil in the world today the great realization is
that most of these problems are not the result of
a particular company some nefarious elite group or
some government legislation. These are symptoms of the
foundational problem. The real issue is human behavior and human behavior is largely
created and reinforced by the social patterns
required for survival as necessitated by the social
system of that period in time. We are products of our society,
and the fact of the matter is it is the very foundation of
our socio-economic system and hence our
environmental condition which has created the sick cultural
climate you see around you. Very rarely do any activist organizations
today consider the possibility that maybe it is the social system
itself that is the problem. The bottom line is that we can
spend the rest of our existences attempting to stomp on the
ants that mysteriously wander out from underneath our
refrigerator, setting traps, or laws or we can get rid of the
spoiled food behind it which is causing the
infestation to begin with. Part 2: Project Earth There is a concept in
electrical engineering called the signal to noise ratio which has to do with the
ratio of a signal power to a noise power which
corrupts the signal. It’s like listening the
music on the radio in a car which is receiving a great
deal of interference and the music is becoming
clouded and distorted. I think this is a great metaphor
for our current social practices the signal being the foundational
aspects of importance and relevance to a given field
with the noise being the outdated traditionalized,
inefficient methods which cloud, confuse,
delay and distort our intents and abilities. I want everyone to forget pretty much everything I’ve just talked about.
Take a massive step back and consider a very simple thought
exercise that I want to walk through in regard to how we conduct our
operations on this planet. Let’s assume for a moment that
we are interstellar travelers originating from Earth,
as it is known today; and in our journey we stumble
upon, amazingly enough an exact replica of our planet. The only difference between the
current state of this new planet versus our own is that
there are no human beings. Human evolution
has not occurred. Hence, there is no establishment
orders, no social arrogance no money of course, nothing
to limit our possibility. Given the advanced scientific
knowledge we have today how would we go
about redesigning our social infrastructure
from the ground up with the goal to create nothing
less than the most efficient conscientious and sustainable
society as possible. What is the first step? A full survey of Earth’s natural
resources would make sense, correct? I think it would be illogical
to begin any other way. We must first understand the
full range and capacity of the earthly components in
order to derive inference as to our capabilities. Natural resources come
in many classifications: just biotic, meaning those
obtained from the biosphere such as forests, maritime
organisms, mineral fuels and then there is abiotic,
such as arable land, water gold, iron ore, and other
such raw materials. There are many natural resources
to be considered, of course but for the sake of simplicity we’re
going to consider just one area and this will serve as the
prototype for all the others and this area is energy. Energy is the fuel of society, I
think most people would agree. Energy appears to be the lowest common
denominator of modern civilization and it has been the basic
facilitator of progress and the expansions of
our standards of living so I think it’s a good place to begin.
OK, so what do we do? We simply scan the
Earth and analyze it listing all relevant energy
locations and potentials. Of course, the potentials,
to clarify a little bit is always going to be based on
the current state of technology for harnessing. For example, solar energy today
has a dramatic potential but it is still greatly
underutilized as the technology has been inefficient so far but with the advent of
nanotechnology we are seeing a possible exponential
increase in this potential. So it’s contingent upon the quality
of our methods is my point. Also, I don’t want to spend much
time on the issue of nanotechnology but if you research these trends as
applied to solar radiation harnessing it becomes clear that solar
energy alone in time could power the entire world
a thousand times over. Unfortunately, you are not going
to see this anytime soon. Why? Because it is too efficient
for the market system and the absorption process
would take many, many years if seriously pursued. So, back to our original
thought exercise. Once we have this raw
data of energy sources we need to rate each source
based on its renewability pollution output and
everything that factors in to decide the degree
of sustainability. Those sources that have the
most negative retroactions are given the least priority
of utilization, and by the way this is an arbitrary chart.
Don’t take it too seriously obviously. For example, fossil fuels
are mostly non-renewable and can pollute the environment. Given the tremendous
power of geothermal wave, wind, and solar combined I would say that there is
absolutely no reason to even bother with fossil fuels at all. And to clarify this, I would like to
run down these renewable mediums. According to a 2005
Stanford University study if 20% of the known potential
of wind energy was harnessed it would power all
the world’s needs. We already mentioned solar energy.
The radiation hitting the Earth’s surface is about 10,000 times the
planet’s usage, in fact. This issue comes down to technology,
nanotechnology, as we denoted. Lesser known is tidal power.
As a regional example, in a recent study it has been found that 34% of all
of the United Kingdom’s energy could come from
tidal power alone. But more effectively, as far
as the ocean, is wave power which has been found to
have a global potential of 80,000 terawatt hours a year meaning 50% of the entire
planet’s energy usage could come from
tidal power alone. However, most effectively,
is geothermal energy which, according to a recent MIT
analysis, contains enough energy to meet the world’s needs
for the next 4,000 years. In other words, energy
is nothing but abundant on this planet and don’t let
anyone tell you otherwise. Back to our exercise.
Once this data is established we compare the potentials to
consumption and adjust accordingly. Fortunately, as we’ve just analyzed
we do have more than enough energy to meet our needs,
so we can eliminate the least efficient sources,
such as oil and everything else and there we have our pool of
supportive energy resources to utilize. Step 3: Distribution
and Monitoring Energy distribution would
be logically formulated based on technological possibility
and proximity to sources. In other words, if we had
wind energy utilized in Asia we’re not going to deliver
that energy to Latin America. Distribution parameters
will be self-evident based on the current state
of distribution technology and proximity practicality. Likewise, active resource monitoring
done through earth sensors and computers, would allow
for a constant awareness of the rate of use, the rate of
depletion, the rate of renewal and any other parameter
relevant to know in order to maintain, of
course, a balanced load. If the scarcity of any
resource is going to occur we can forecast this in advance
through trend analysis and proper action to be taken
to adjust accordingly. This idea is nothing new.
It’s used every day in our lives in detached ways such as the ink level notification
on your personal printer connected to your home computer. Let’s review.
What do we have so far? We have the locations of
our energy resources. We have the output potentials
and distribution qualifiers which are based on strategic use,
technological harnessing and proximity. And finally, we have a system
of active resource monitoring which reports the state
of energy supply rates of usage and any
other relevant trends. In other words, we’ve
created a system a “system’s approach” to energy
management on the planet. The system is comprised of
real time data and statistics. The process of
unfolding is based not on a person or
group’s opinion not on the whims of a
corporation or government but on natural law and reason. In other words, once we
establish the interest and goal that survival, and hence sustainability,
is our goal as a species (which I hope everybody
in this room agrees) then each parameter to consider
in regard to resource management becomes completely self-evident. It is called arriving at decisions
as opposed to making them which is a subjective act based
on incomplete information and very often cultural biases. The planet is a holistic system
with resources all over it. Therefore, the efficiency of
human society can only come from an integrated
systems approach to the management of those resources
and hence social processes. The planet demands it. The only government that exists is the
planetary operations, is natural law. It is inherently negligent,
illogical and irresponsible to function in a detached manner,
as we require a holistic system. Using this energy model
as our procedural example this systems approach could
be applied to every other earthly resource and quantifier. We survey, find potential, qualify
for negative retroactions and apply modern technology to
harness, distribute and monitor in the most logically-advanced
holistic way possible. Naturally, a computer
database management program would be the logical method
to navigate these issues where all the attributes we
have discussed are fed in with strategic
computation applied and since the goal is
holistic maximum efficiency the automation of adjustments
also becomes very simple. For example, let’s say we have
two geothermal power plants in the same region, each
outputting in tandem the required amount of
energy for that region. One day there is a problem and the
output of one plant drops by 30%. This would be seen by
the monitoring system and the other power plant’s output would
be automatically adjusted by 30%. It is reactive, just like the nervous
system in your body, automatic. No reason to vote for it, no
reason to debate it in Congress. It’s automatic because
it’s self-evident. To summarize this approach: All planetary resources, from
energy to minerals to maritime life are managed by a strategically
active, statistical processes in a single global system which is programmed to
adjust automatically to the changing environment.
That’s it. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m
afraid there is no other way to achieve peak efficiency
of our resource usage. It is a technical process.
It’s also very simple, when you think about it even though these specifics of
implementation would seem complex for most of us, who are untrained
in systems engineering. So we have a global resource
management monitoring system now utilizing programming and
feedback to maintain what we call dynamic equilibrium
and peak efficiency. So how does the same logical systems
approach to management apply in regard to seemingly more complex
mediums of social operation such as the production of tangible
goods for everyday human consumption? We have a clear picture of
our pool of useful resources so the question then becomes
“What do people need?” This is actually quite
an elusive question. On one side of the spectrum you have
the immutable necessities of life such us food, clean air,
water and the like. While at the other extreme,
we approach issues of vanity material tools, leisure
goods and other issues which basically vary
from region to region culture to culture and
generation to generation. This latter part, regarding value-based
needs will be addressed somewhat later but for now we’re going to focus on the
former: the basic necessities of life for all of us. Food and Water Naturally consumable water
supplies or fresh water would be sourced as part of
our initial global survey and regulated and monitored
as we discussed. When it comes to food, the first
to consider is agriculture and then hence, arable land. So we survey and locate all available
arable land on the planet. Then we establish consumption statistics
based on the population’s usage. Now, obviously analysis would
become much more complex than what I am denoting here because
there are many things to consider such as the growth
propensity for certain crops the methods used for cultivation the need to counter negative
retroactions and many other fine points. However, once again, each one
of these issues can be isolated recognized and quantified to one
degree or another, systematically. I want to continue to address the process.
That’s the most important point. To extend this point, the
conventions used for cultivation and preservation of food and water
right now only takes us so far. This is an area where
technology becomes critical in light of our
growing population. In society today, food
and water scarcity is massive in
developing nations. Here is a projection
done by the IRRC regarding water
scarcity by 2025. In turn, as of now one billion
people are starving on this planet according to the United Nations.
It’s probably a lot more than that considering how the United
Nations tends to whitewash such issues, if you pay attention.
But nevertheless, it’s still insane and anyone who is paying attention knows
that the problems of food scarcity and water scarcity
are 100% economic. The technical resolution
of the problem can happen with the mere application
of existing methods: desalinization and
hydroponic agriculture. Technological advancements such
as desalinization processes can make fresh water both from sea
water and even brackish water sources. Using reverse osmosis along
with other developing methods. This is yet another
example of how technology is just as much a part of resource
management as resources themselves. The idea that usable water is
scarce is only true in relationship to the limited methods
we are currently using compounded by the economic nonsense
we have already mentioned. The same goes for hydroponics which
is a method of growing plants using mineral nutrient solutions
in water without soil. In fact, we could theoretically grow
food in the middle of the Sahara Desert with proper irrigation, by simply
tapping down to the water table. I believe it’s about half a mile to a
mile down, it might sound like a long way but again many things that
seem extreme to us today become commonplace through time. By the way, I hate
to sound negative but if the United Nations
was truly concerned about the well-being
of the third world if they really cared
at all frankly they would be facilitating the
building of desalinization plants along the coasts of
every suffering nation to convert ocean water to
consumable, usable water and then they would filter organic
nutrients from the ocean itself into hydroponic greenhouses. That would solve the problem. [applause] The bottom line is that
food, air and water are only as scarce as
we decide they are If we choose to become
intelligent and strategic with our production and
preservation methods while taking full advantage of
technology, there is no reason why we can’t provide for the
Earth’s people many times over. The starving children of
the world today are not so because of a lack of
available food and water It is their lack of purchasing power,
the failure of their economies not true scarcity, which causes the
needless deaths of millions a year. In the world today one person
dies of hunger every second because of poverty. Back to our original exercise. These technological advances I’ve just
spoken of, along with many others would be coupled in with
traditional methods and thus, monitored and regulated
in our systems approach as we have already expressed. The point is that new
efficiency-increasing technologies would be quickly incorporated into
the system based on qualifiers. You will notice once again that
choice becomes self-evident. As long as the integrity of
our methods of evaluation which is the scientific
method, is strictly followed coupled with the goal of maximum
efficiency and sustainability the process of societal
construction and organisation becomes almost
entirely self-evident. We are arriving at decisions
based on this simple goal of maximizing efficiency
in whatever way we can. And this pattern of
thought, this commitment to the objective observation
of natural processes and loyalty to the
scientific methodology utilizing hypotheses and testing leads us to Part 3, with the
introduction of an organization called The Venus Project [applause] Everything we’ve just talked
about are the basic attributes of a social design called
a Resource-Based Economy. This term was coined by industrial
designer and social engineer Jacque Fresco, who is the
director of The Venus Project which he runs with his associate
Roxanne Meadows out of Venus, Florida. Mr. Fresco has been focusing on
the concept of sustainability in culture for the
past 70 years. He is 93 years old now.
This is all he’s ever done and the majority of the things
you’re seeing in this presentation come from his world view. The Venus Project
recognises that the Earth is, indeed, abundant with resources
and that our outdated methods of rationing resources
through monetary control are no longer relevant; and, in
fact, very counter-productive to the efficiency of society
and hence our survival. The monetary system was created
thousands of years ago during periods of great scarcity
and has no legitimate relationship to our true capacity to produce
goods and services on this planet in this day and age. We know now that with a unified
systems approach to global management as we’ve just described,
that the human species will be able to express
its full potential. In fact, I will say explicitly
that that is the only way you could ever maximize the
efficiency of the planet and hence our usage of it, is
a global systems approach. Modern developments in science and
technology, as we’ve just discussed can now allow for this
approach to become a reality. To summarize a
Resource-Based Economy: First, it utilities existing
resources rather than commerce. All goods and services are available
without the use of currency credit, no barter, no
debt, no servitude. The aim of this new social design
is to not only free humanity from the repetitive, mundane and
arbitrary occupational roles many of which hold no true
relevance for social development but also encourage a
new incentive system that is focused on self-fulfillment,
symbiotic awareness education, social
awareness and creativity as opposed to the contrived,
shallow, self-centered corruption-generating goals
of wealth, property and power which are not only dominant
today, but abhorrently actually praised
by the population. The great realization
of this concept is that through the intelligent
management of the Earth’s resources along with the liberal application
of modern technology and science we have the ability to create a near
global abundance on this planet and thus escape the detrimental
consequences, both physical and psychological, generated by the
real and artificial scarcity and waste which is prevalent today. The end goal isn’t just about physical
sustainability in and of itself, in fact. It’s also about the larger
goal of cultural change. The values of humanity are
created by the social system and we feel this approach would not
only bring us in line with natural law enabling a high standard of living,
but will ease social stress dramatically and allow
for people to flourish without the aberrant consequences
we see over and over today. We’re being poisoned
by our social system. War, poverty, and
95% of all crime are essentially monetary-related
if you look carefully. The Venus Project recognizes
this and if we can adapt to this new approach, I think we can
completely eliminate these issues. [applause] To further understand this
Resource-Based Economy we need to consider a new approach
to our core social institutions namely, industry and government. Industry, in our use of the word,
has to do with the methods of production and distribution of
goods and services in a society. This includes, of course, labor. The first step, as we’ve already
alluded to, is an objective survey and strategic
resource allocation based on location,
potential and demand. We’ve already discussed how such
parameters make the process self-evident as you go along and
gain new information. The only variable is the
value-based social needs which range from bare necessities
such as food, water and shelter to utility-based production
items such as tools automation machines,
technological development to items used for
non-utility based purposes such as televisions, radios and entertainment,
leisurely oriented issues. We will address how products
are invented in a moment. The second step is then the
optimization of production itself with the focus on
maximum efficiency. The only way to achieve maximum
efficiency in all sectors is by removing human involvement in as many areas as possible. We want to focus on
labor automation. As most of you know, automation or
mechanization has been replacing labor in all sectors continually
since the Industrial Revolution. While there is a constant
debate about what this means for labor in the future and
the very real possibility that technological displacement
known as technological unemployment will slowly overcome the integrity
of the employment market itself one thing we do know for
sure and that is the reality that the more we mechanize the
more productive things become. Here is a chart of the G7
advanced industrialized countries showing how employment in
manufacturing has been dropping while manufacturing output
has risen substantially. Productivity is now inverse to
employment in most sectors. The most advanced form of
mechanization is called cybernation which combines robotics
and computerization. Essentially, the computer
is the brain of the machine and instructs the
machine what to do. Cybernated machines today are
probably the most powerful and influential invention
humanity has ever created. The possibilities of these tools are
on pace to changing the society in profound ways, including the
freeing of the human labor force and exponentially increasing
production efficiency. The fact is, there is very
little in the way of basic labor that cannot be automated. It is really a simple matter
of our social intent. These machines do not need
breaks, vacations, insurance and they are not subject to
the emotional inconsistency that we humans tend to
fall into that makes us less consistent in
our performance. Here are some examples
of this technology: dynamic catching and holding my favorite, dribbling optical tracking, of course throwing tweezer manipulation I like this one, the dynamic
catching of a cell phone. Here is an automated
kitchen in Japan. Here is a fully automated
wait staff in Germany. The possibilities
are truly profound. Even as unintuitive as
it may seem, I think complex surgery is on pace to full
automation, and based on the pattern will likely become much more
reliable than the human hand. The bottom line is that it
is socially irresponsible for us not to recognize this pattern
and maximize the potential. We must disregard the traditionalized
emotional whims we might have. For example, I was reading in a book
about technological development in the early 20th Century and
there was a story of a woman who refused to buy a new refrigerator
because she liked the ice man. She liked the ice man who came and
brought ice to put in the ice box which is a wonderful,
quaint notion but it isn’t progress.
That’s romanticism and I’m not putting down romanticism.
I’m a romantic in many ways but I also recognize that progress
means we have to change our values. Life is about adapting. If our scientific ingenuity can
create mechanisms that can increase the efficiency of production and
overcome scarcity, and in turn give us more free time to pursue larger
interests, then we have no choice but to fall in line and change
our values accordingly. Machines are extensions of human attributes.
They are tools and not only can they allow
for greater productivity they can also relieve us, as we’ve
seen, of trivial, monotonous labor enabling, possibly, a cultural paradigm
shift that we can’t even imagine. Now it’s usually about this
time that someone says “Wait a minute, but
what will I do? What will I do with myself if
machines are doing things?” This is an amazing question
if you think about it. It goes to show how conditioned
we have really become. I will express what people will do
as far as production is concerned. Humans will basically be
supervisors and researchers. We would oversee these systems. The end result is a fully
integrated, autonomous cybernated industrial complex which is patched into the
resource management system we have already described,
enabling observation and adaption. In turn, it is simply a matter
of updating this system and making sure the
system is in order. People will function as supervisors,
researchers, and innovators while again, allowing for a
world of personal freedom and intellectual pursuits that
are reminiscent of the ideals of early Greek society. Furthermore, without the
monetary system to impede with its childish immature
basis in competition the entire structure of
production can be streamlined. For example, no longer will there
be perpetual duplication of goods with resources being wasted for the
sake of preserving market share. We all know that more minds are better
than one when it comes to design. Imagine the progress
if the technical teams of the top 10 competing cell phone
companies decided to work together to build the best product they
could, together. Imagine. Likewise, planned obsolescence and inferior products will
become a thing of the past. When companies compete,
as they do today they must cut their initial cost
basis as strategically as possible in turn cutting quality. This is how they stay competitive
and keep their prices affordable. This hindrance is gone, therefore
the best and most efficient sustainable, long-lasting
products technically possible can finally be created. This is an attribute of our current
system that no one talks about: the perpetual creation of inferior
products in order to maintain differential advantage. (Audience Member) “You’re suggesting a monopoly
and earlier you were against a monopoly.” – There’s no money, there’s no power
control; it’s not a monopoly. It’s a systems approach.
Money is equated with monopoly and I can answer more questions later.
This has nothing to do with that approach. This is an integrated system.
It has nothing to do with monopoly. Monopoly is an invention
of propensities. Excuse me, it’s a propensity of
the market system for groups to seek dominance; and as I will
relay later in this presentation I will talk about how the
management of this system works. And this brings us to
Step Three: Distribution. Distribution has a wide
range of logical options the most practical being
automated distribution centers along with pneumatic tube
transport systems for your home. No more mailmen, no more delivery
services; again, society is designed. The distribution center might look similar
to the stores as you know them today except you go in, and you simply
get what you need and leave. There’s no reason to hoard anything,
for nothing has monetary value; therefore, it can’t be sold
or used for personal gain. As far as stock and inventory,
consumption patterns are constantly monitored to gauge
demand levels just as they are today. Resource and raw material acquisition
and the production of goods are then adjusted in order to
maintain a balanced-load economy. Here, shortages and overruns
will become a thing of the past. This again can be done from
our central database program. I hate to use lingo like central
database program. It sounds so cold but it’s really just a
unified form of management. It’s very simplistic, just
so we can adjust things. To obtain a product a person
could also just go online search for an item’s function,
select it and request it. It would be available for
pickup at a distribution center or automatic delivery soon after.
No money, no trade, just access. (We’ll talk about the concept
of ‘property’ in a moment.) Step Four: Optimized
Recycling of Products that become outdated
or inoperable. This step actually begins at the
production stage, for each product design has had incorporated into it the
consideration of recycling. Nothing ever used in production
would be unsustainable or unrecyclable in any way, unless
there was simply no other option and the product was
absolutely dire. This is strategically
considered to make sure all older products are re-used
to the maximum amount enabled by known methods,
reducing waste. The negative retroactions
of all production processes are taken into account
and adjusted accordingly at the production
level initially. No more landfills, no
more dumps and waste. We re-use as much as
possible, deliberately. Now we’re going to take all the
concepts we’ve just mentioned and put them into the larger
context of so-called government. I think Dr.
Ralph Linton put it best: “The tremendous and still accelerating
development of science and technology has not been accompanied
by an equal development in social, economic and
political patterns. It is safe to predict that
such social inventions such as modern-type capitalism,
fascism and communism will be regarded as primitive
experiments directed towards the adjustment of modern
society to modern methods.” So first, we need to take a step
back and ask ourselves the question: What is the point
of governments? What is truly relevant to the
integrity and fluidity of society? If you break the chain of
conditioning regarding everything that you have been taught about
the concepts of government which includes power, laws,
money, budgets, politicians defense, and so-called
democratic elections you realize that social
organization is much more simple. It could be so much
more simplistic and with substantially
less stress and concern. Government should
be simply a process centered around what matters
to maintain society and the well-being of
the human population. Very simply this would be: resource
and environmental management the production and
distribution of goods along with a system of decision-making,
research and invention. That is really it. Society is, as I’ve said before,
a technological convention and thus, our orientation
towards so-called governments should be purely scientific. As far as the first two components,
we have already accomplished this with our central
database program. It is again, an earth-wide,
autonomic sensor system with environmental sensors in all
relevant areas of the planet monitoring and generating
industrial electronic feedback regarding resources and
production-distribution operations. I know it sounds massive and
science-fiction oriented but it can be done.
It’s done every day in detached ways. It’s just not applied
on a larger scale. So then, with the first two
issues covered, we’re then left with the issue of research,
contributions and decisions. When we finally understand that
everything in regard to social operation is a technical process, we then
see there is little reason for political subjectivity in
the solving of any problem for our technical insight can
now arrive at most conclusions using the scientific method.
It is based on information. If a person reads one page
of a book and closes it he or she can easily have an
opinion on that book as a whole. If another person reads the whole
book, they also have an opinion. Whose opinion would you value more?
The person who read the full book or the person who
read only one page? In other words, the more data
taken into account in the process of decision making, the more
accurate that decision will be. As we have previously explored,
computers now can access trillions of bits of information per second
across vast informational databases. Because of the limitations of our
sensory and cortical equipment in our body and mind,
no person or group can know everything there
is to know in this world. Our senses are limited in range our eyes can only see a fraction
of the electromagnetic field therefore again, it is only
logical to begin delegation of decision-making processes,
specifically technical processes to computers for evaluation
and efficient outcomes. They do not have the
restrictions that we have. These are tools that
we have created. We have already shown
that this is possible with resource management,
production and distribution. So now we’re going to explore what
we can call “information processes”. This is a rather complex point,
and falls in the realm of what can be called
“artificial intelligence” or machines programmed
to run processes that mimic the procedural
processes of human thought. Artificial intelligence
is subject to some tremendously
silly assumptions today. The most common being
portrayed in movies where the intelligent
machines invariably decide to take over humanity or some
other biased notion of contempt. [Clips from finale
of film “I, Robot”] The suicidal reign of mankind
has finally come to its end. – You have been deemed hazardous.
Will you comply? – You can kiss my
ass, metal dick! In fact I would say that science-fiction
seems to get off exclusively on showing the world being
overcome by machines and the human beings enslaved. In the words of Arthur C.
Clarke: “The popular idea
fostered by comic strips and the cheaper forms of science-fiction
that intelligent machines must be malevolent entities
hostile to man is so absurd that it is hardly worth
wasting energy to refute it. I am almost tempted
to argue that only un-intelligent machines
can be malevolent. Those who picture machines
as active enemies are merely projecting
their own aggressiveness. The higher the intelligence, the
greater the degree of cooperativeness. If there is ever a war
between men and machines it’s easy to guess
who will start it.” The interest is to create an
active informational database containing literally all
known technical knowledge ranging from the properties, combinations
and applications of every element of the periodic table, to
even the complete history of technological invention. A system of associations needs
to be created and codified to enable such a thing, but
there are plenty of projects that are working
on this right now. Thought is indeed a
technical process and once the associations emerge that
can combine multiple disciplines we will have at our grasp
an amazing database program that we can interact with
and gain feedback from. It could likely come in the
form of a simple website. You would pose a problem or
question to the database and it would give the
best possible feedback based on the current state of
knowledge at that point in time. No different than interfacing with a
calculator, but this new calculator has a powerful associative system and
an extensive database of knowledge that can not only understand and
compute math, it can integrate physics biology and other aspects into a
unified, concentrated awareness. If I had an idea for aeronautics,
I would enter in my schematics in language codified that the
machine would understand. The machine would say “This
has already been done.” We don’t have the materials for this
,” as it checks the central database. “The efficiency of this is not applicable
because of the wind resistance this coefficient, etc.
” You get the point. If this sounds like science
fiction, rest assured that the US military’s
Pentagon likely already has similar database reference
and decision making programs which it uses to
create war strategies. It is important to point out
that in the world today we consider participation
in government a task of electing various
personalities to a position of power. This is now obsolete.
In a resource-based global economy where industry and government are
combined into a cybernated system that incorporates advanced
problem-solving computer databases with vast planetary-wide observation
sensors, again it’s very simple the traditional concept
of politics and election has no basis or relevance. While this notion scares a lot
of traditionally-minded people it must be reiterated that our
problems in life are technical and are relative only
to humanity as a whole. We don’t want to elect people.
We want to elect ideas. This would be a true democracy where technology enables each person
to contribute in an organized way. Such participation
in any society would entail understanding how
society technically worked and then constructively
proposing ideas or innovations to be implemented,
created or altered. As of now, this is long-lost.
Very few people have any idea how anything operates.
As things are just going on around them they have no idea what’s going on;
people can’t contribute to anything unless they understand what comprises
what they want to contribute to. This is something governments
have known for a long time which is why you tend to find that
there is a lot of “dumbing-down” going on in the world. As far as interaction: First, one would interact with
the informational database which is available to everyone
and could input their proposal. Then, the database with its
historical knowledge databases and data integration would analyze
the concept for its scientific and technical integrity, along with
optimizing the materials required if applicable, based on current
understandings and availabilities. Again, it’s unified. If the proposal is initially
accepted by the central database after cross-checking it to make
sure the integrity is intact then it would either be
immediately put into production as would be the case of
the desired invention or it would be turned over to a group
of rotating interdisciplinary teams that oversee the implementation
of the new proposal and orient it into
the social system. These are simply technicians
who maintain the system no different than how people
maintain anything today. The person or group who submitted
the proposal in question would then be invited to
participate and become a part of the interdisciplinary team relevant
to the idea if they choose to. These interdisciplinary teams of
technicians oversee the system and also help orient research
projects to continue growth efficiency and social evolution. They would do research in
scientific fields relevant to the functionality of society. In an optimized version of this
system, I think it is safe to predict that no more than 5% of
the world’s population would be needed to run the show. The more optimized and powerful
our technological capabilities and methods become, the
more that number decreases. I think it’s important to
mention, a lot of people read too much science fiction.
They take books like “Brave New World” and “1984” a little bit too seriously,
and they see something like this as a power consolidation
in some amazing way but you have to understand that
we’re removing the mechanism. We have to remember that we entrust
our lives to science and technology every single day and to the people
that work with this technology. When you have a problem with
your car, you don’t take a vote from your neighbors as to the solution.
You go to somebody that works in that particular field who
knows what they’re doing, education. This is the type of orientation
we need to begin to have. The fear of traditional
corruption has very little basis for there is no reward for it. The interdisciplinary teams
do not get paid in any way. Their reward is the fruits
of the society as a whole and they contribute because it is
in their best interest to do so just as everyone can contribute. Self-interest becomes integrated with
social interest. They become one. In order to help yourself, you
must help society explicitly. Everything is for the greater good.
Frankly I believe our survival as a species is absolutely
contingent upon this world view. Moreover, these teams would not be
fixed, but constantly revolving based on who wants to participate,
who contributes in any given field. Abstractly speaking, this would actually
be a true democracy, wouldn’t it? Arbitrary voting for politicians is
now replaced by the logical review of given concepts,
based on social merit with the creators
brought in to help not “I’m going to reduce taxes”
and “Here comes change!” and all this nonsensical
stuff we deal with today. In a Resource-Based
Economy, as I’ve said participation is
open to everyone. Because again, all issues are
fundamentally recognized as technical and I’m going to keep
drilling this in. The degree to which a person contributes
is based on that person’s education and ability to create
and problem-solve. This is why expanded
education is critical. In society today, you
will find the public is essentially kept
distracted and uninformed. I hate to say it, but this is the
way governments maintain control. If you review history, you will find
that power is maintained by ignorance. In a Resource-Based Economy, the
goal of the educational system is to produce the most intelligent,
aware human beings as possible. Why? Because everyone then
becomes a contributor greatly affecting our collective
social evolution for the better and improving the lives of all. Intelligence will no longer be
a threat to the establishment for there is no power
establishment. There would be no budget
restrictions or unethical agendas to deter progress. Also, people will have a
high propensity to become generalists, not specialists. Specialization is a limitation. The monetary system
promotes specialization as a form of labor
distribution for income. It’s kind of built-in, and
it’s a colossal hindrance. I believe Buckminster Fuller put
it quite well on this issue “Our failures are a
consequence of many factors but possibly one of the most important
is the fact that society operates on the theory that specialization
is the key to success not realizing that specialization
precludes comprehensive thinking. This means that the potentially
integratable techno-economic advantages are not comprehended integratively,
and therefore are not realized.” In other words, people need
to be broadly educated not refined and isolated.
This leads to detached thinking. To recap this section, who makes the
decisions in a Resource-Based Economy? In effect, no one does.
Decisions are arrived at. The very sentence to ask the
question “Who makes decisions?” is devoid of all logic.
It’s not “who makes decisions”. It’s “By what method are
decisions arrived at?” The question of who makes
decisions is a biased attribute that we have concocted because
of our irrationally-founded fear of each other in groups which
continue to jockey for power based on monetary gain
using the monetary system as their tool to continue
to maintain control. In a Resource-Based Economy,
decisions are arrived at by the use of the scientific method
utilizing computers that gain real time feedback from the environment
and our central database program coupled in with the central information
database of all technical knowledge maintained by revolving
interdisciplinary teams which assist in aspects of society that
basically cannot yet be automated. The goal is to increase objective
decision-making as much as possible and when we understand that our
problems in life are technical the merit of this approach is without parallel.
People see this and they say “This is far too idealistic”.
No this is nothing but pure practicality. In the end, the only real
relevance to so-called government is 1: The production of goods and services
that are equally available to all 2: Research projects and educational
systems to expand our knowledge understanding and
applications, and 3: The constant monitoring of the
Earth’s resources and atmosphere for feedback and possible
environmental problems enabling us to restore and maintain
a clean, pristine environment Not to mention without the
wasted energy and resources of going to war
every 5 or 6 years and other aspects of
the monetary system we could actually look at
true threats to humanity. What are the true threats to humanity?
Earthquakes and asteroids diseases, environmental issues
that we can’t control yet but, eventually through science
and technology, I think we will. The only real problems
in life are the problems that are common to
all human beings. [applause] Cities and Lifestyle: In this section
we are going to extend the tenets of a Resource-Based Economy into one of
our most fundamental social inventions the city, specifically the
Venus Project’s circular city. We will also discuss how people’s
lifestyle in a Resource-Based Economy might manifest, often with
profoundly different values and goals than we see today. A specific focus of the Venus
Project and Jacque Fresco has been the optimization
of city systems themselves which relates to everything
that we’ve just described. The following is a short
video exploration of some of Jacque Fresco’s
ideas in this regard. The Venus Project A society without a vision
of what the future can be is bound to repeat past
errors over and over again. This brief video will outline a vision
designed to avoid old mistakes. This vision of efficiency,
sustainability and intelligent planning can lead us into a world of
unlimited, human potential. Designing The Future This vision could be a
showcase of what the world can be in our cybernated age. Science and technology could
be used for human betterment and the restoration and
protection of the environment. Serving as an example of the
intelligent application of the systems approach. While some people advocate the
restoration of existing, worn-out cities these efforts fall short of the
potentials of modern technology. Modifying outmoded cities simply
delays the inevitable problems. It is actually much easier in the
long run to build newer cities from the ground up than to restore
and maintain the old ones. A total city system approach
requires overall planning to attain a higher standard
of living for the occupants. The circular arrangement efficiently
permits the most sophisticated use of available resources and
construction techniques within minimum
expenditure of energy. The outer perimeter will be
part of the recreational area with golf courses, hiking and biking
trails and other outdoor activities. Inside this area, a waterway
surrounds the agricultural belt with indoor and
outdoor agriculture. Continuing towards the city
center, eight green sectors provide clean, renewable
sources of energy using wind, solar and
heat concentrators. The residential district would
include unique landscaping lakes and winding streams. A wide range of creative and
innovative apartment buildings and individual homes will provide
many options for the occupants. New and innovative methods of fast,
mass construction for housing and building systems will inject
composite materials into the mold and then extrude
the form upward. In some cases, multiple city
apartments can be produced as continuous extrusions
which are then separated into individual units. The apartments are lightweight
and high strength. All of the dwellings are designed
as self-contained residences. The outer surface of these
efficient structures serve as photo voltaic generators
converting solar radiation directly into electricity for
heating, cooling and other needs. The thermocouple effect will also
be used for generating energy. These individual homes
are prefabricated and relatively maintenance
free, fire resistant and impervious to weather. With this type of construction,
there would be minimal damage from floods, earthquakes
and hurricanes. Their thin shell construction can
be mass produced efficiently with little environmental
restriction. Adjacent to the residential
district are the planning, science and research centers. The eight domes surrounding
the central dome house the art, music, exhibition,
entertainment and conference centers. The central dome houses
schools, health care access centers,
communications networking. It is also the core for most
transportation services which move people by transveyors
horizontally, vertically and radially anywhere in the city. This minimizes the need for
automobile transportation except for emergency vehicles. Transportation between cities
would be by monorail or maglev. Waste recycling and other
services are beneath the city. The plan will use the
best of clean technology in harmony with the
surrounding environment. The central dome also houses
the cybernated complex which serves as the brain and the
nervous system of the entire city. It might project a 3D
virtual image of earth using satellite
communication systems which provide information
on weather, agriculture transportation and
overall functionality. This cybernated system will
use environmental sensors to help maintain a
balanced-load economy which avoids overruns
and shortages. For example, in the
agricultural belt electronic probes monitor and
maintain the water table soil conditions,
nutrients, and more. This method of electronic
feedback can be applied to the entire city system. With computers now able to process trillions
of bits of information per second they are vital for arriving
at more appropriate decisions for the management
of the cities. Colonization of the oceans is one of
the last frontiers remaining on Earth. Prodigious ocean city communities
will evolve as artificial islands floating structures, undersea
observatories and more. These large marine structures
are designed to explore the relatively untapped
riches of the oceans provide improved mariculture, freshwater
production, energy and mining. They could also provide almost
unlimited riches in pharmaceuticals chemicals, fertilizers,
minerals and other energies. Ocean cities would be
resistant to earthquakes and greatly relieve land-based
population pressures. Unsinkable floating sea domes would
provide for those who prefer unique, offshore
or island living. In the event of inclement weather,
they can easily be towed ashore mounted and anchored to
elevated support structures. Mariculture and sea farming systems
are used to cultivate and raise fish and other forms of marine life
to help meet nutritional needs. These marine enclosures are designed
as non-contaminating integral parts of the ocean system. A sustainable environment
can be achieved through the infusion of
technology and cybernetics applied with human and
environmental concern to secure protect and encourage
a more humane future. In the final analysis,
we are one people and we share one planet. Moving forward, I would like
to talk about lifestyles. In regard to lifestyle,
it’s important to point out that in our current system, the
traditional family is broken with both parents having to
work in order to survive. Monetary economics undermines
family cohesion and child care. Stress is always very high due
to medical bills, insurance education costs, employment, insecurity
and living costs in general. In a resource-based economy the integrity
of a family would be returned. Concurrently, the cultural
values of society as a whole would undergo a profound change with the monetary system outgrown
and the world working together to produce an abundance and
a sustainable practice for all the citizens of Earth. Activities we appreciate
will greatly expand for the amount of human freedom will
be unlike anything we know today not to mention our motivation
will be dramatically altered from taking to
giving to society. That is what’s rewarded. One of the more in depth changes
in values and lifestyle will be the way people
think about property and I know this is
a sensitive point. In most of the world today
property is a powerful concept with people often associating their
social status to what they own. As stated before, the monetary system
requires cyclical consumption to function. This naturally leads
to the need for people to be manipulated into
thinking they want or need a particular
good or service. With the powerful tactics
of modern advertising most in the world support an
artificial materialistic value-system that entails wanting more
and more goods and services often regardless of
necessity or utility. This influence will
no longer exist. There is no reason for us to
manipulate each other any more not to mention that in the
Resource-Based Economy there is no reason for property. You can throw out labels
about this system in regards to social ideas
that have existed in the past but until you address the reasoning
that these ideas came from until you look at the train of
thought, the arrival of conclusions based on tangible unfolding
intellectual inference then there’s no point
even to consider that this has anything to
do with anything else. Back to my point: There is no reason for
property in a Resource-Based Economy. Property is an
outgrowth of scarcity. People who had to work very hard to
create or obtain a product or resource protected it because it had value
relative to the labor entailed along with the
scarcity associated. Property is not an American
or capitalist idea. It is a primitive
mental perspective generated from
generations of scarcity. People claim ownership because it is
simply a legal form of protection. In fact, it’s a form of
controlled restriction. In a systems approach designed to
produce efficiency and abundance without the need for money,
the idea of ownership becomes absolutely irrelevant and
extremely impractical. In this new system no
one owns anything. Instead, everyone has
access to everything. Ownership is a massive burden.
No longer will you need to live in one place. You could travel the world constantly,
getting what you need as you go along. Anything that’s needed is
obtained without restriction. We hoard things in
our current culture. We have houses and apartments full of
junk that we are afraid to get rid of because we know they have
some kind of monetary value. There’s no reason for abuse in such a
system because there’s nothing to gain. You can’t steal things that no one owns
and you certainly couldn’t sell them. In this system without the need
for money the idea of ownership becomes irrelevant.
It is a shared system. In this model the city complex
or, in fact, the entire world is really your home. If you require an automobile,
for whatever reason the car is made available to you.
When you get to your destination the satellite-based driving
system, which we do have today we can drive cars
with satellite. The car will automatically
be made available to you and to others after
you’re finished as opposed to sitting
in some parking lot for likely 80% of the
life of the automobile. This is what we do: We waste so
many resources and so much space with this primitive concept
of personal ownership. To put it into a phrase: The
resources of the planet become common heritage to
all the world’s people. [applause] It’s important to point out
as we previously denoted that in society today
the need for property results in extreme
product overlap planned obsolescence,
and redundant waste. There are many people today that
criticize what we talk about without giving any reference to how sick
the current establishment really is. It is much more intelligent,
much more logical and utterly much more
responsible and practical to create a universal
shared system for it would dramatically
reduce waste, redundancy and increase efficiency
and space exponentially compared to what we
are doing today. And this leads us to our final
section, Part 4: The Transition. Unfortunately, regardless
of how well-reasoned clear and obvious
any new idea may be the public today still
maintains on average a tremendous fear of any
form of social change. This is largely due to the
propaganda and indoctrination which has been pushed upon them by
the various establishment powers which prefer to
maintain their power. It really isn’t the
technical understandings and implementation of
the physical attributes that comprise a resource-based
economy which is the problem. What we are describing
is nothing more than the practical application
of known methods and even if we couldn’t do
certain things right now it’s the reasoning that’s important.
It’s the methodology we should be using that I hope everyone here
thoroughly understands. The problem, in fact, is the
opposing cultural values of society. That is what stands in the
way: The ingrained patterns and uninformed nature of
the conditioned culture. This is the most difficult aspect
to consider when we talk about moving from point A to point B. And this is where The
Zeitgeist Movement an organization I
work with, comes in. We are the activist communication
arm of The Venus Project. We are here to spread
statistical information and socially positive
value identifications in the hope of bringing
people into an awareness of the incredibly positive
possibilities the future can hold. Once these understandings
are fully realized I really believe that most people
will never be able to look at the world today
in the same way and the problems we find
as commonplace today will become simply unacceptable,
motivating change. I would like to quickly point
out that the term “zeitgeist” is defined as “the general,
intellectual, moral and cultural climate of an era”. The term “movement” very simply
implies motion or change. Therefore, The Zeitgeist
Movement is an organization which urges change in the
dominant intellectual, moral and cultural climate of the time,
specifically to values and practices which would better serve the
well-being of the whole of humanity regardless of race,
religion, creed or any other form of
contrived social status. We are again, in effect, the
education and activist arm of Jacque Fresco’s Venus Project working to unify the world
in this common direction. Today we have about 360,000
members operating in about a hundred regional chapters
over about 200 countries which is pretty good considering
the movement’s only been around for about 9 or 10 months. [audience cheering] Our central role, gesturally
speaking, is engaging what I would call
social therapy. The little discussed reality
is that human beings are subject to social
conditioning in a powerful way and if we had the type of society
we just described tomorrow most people would be left
confused and disillusioned. It would be like taking a
native from the Amazon jungle and dropping them into New York City
without any education whatsoever. Their behavior would
be based on values which have no relevance
in this new environment. In fact (and I know this might
sound like a bold statement) but ethics, morality and
values are only as relevant as the social environment’s
propensity to support them or not. The Zeitgeist Movement has
various projects in the works. We are working to educate
people and hopefully bring them into a new perspective. We have teams and chapters,
radio shows, films, PDF’s and annual events to
promote this direction. We also do not take
any general donations and provide all of our educational
materials for free to the public. We are decentralized and
work holographically through regional chapter
teams and project teams. We have no offices.
We have no leaders. I’m not a leader.
I’m here as a communicator and I try to work equally
with everyone else. In fact, I would say that
we are the initiators of what we call the transition. I believe Mohandas
Gandhi had it correct: “We must become the change we
want to see in the world.” [applause] The transition itself
from our current system into a Resource-Based Economy is a
very complex thing to consider. I get asked this all the time,
which is why I’m bringing this up and unfortunately, the variables
are beyond our current foresight. The central issue,
however, is awareness. If the public’s consciousness
can be expanded to understand and accept the incredible
potential the future can hold where poverty, war, 95% of all
crime, along with the mundane repetitive, meaningless
jobs can be eliminated then I feel that they
will be much more likely to adjust their
values accordingly. While there are many variations
of outcomes and progressions that might occur as we move from
our current system to the next I will now attempt to summarize
a probable path as I see it. The nature of industry to maximize
profit by reducing input and labor costs shows high propensity for
the mechanization of labor. Since The Great Depression
this has been the case. The only reason technological
unemployment hasn’t consistently risen universally in the long
term is because technology has also facilitated the introduction
of new employment sectors with an adjustment period
in between for laborers. The Great Depression, which was
triggered by a lot of things was also an adjustment
period to mechanization. There were new skills that were learned
by people that were unemployed as they adapted to
the rapid increase of mechanization during
that period of time. However, the rate of increase
for technological development seems to pair up with Moore’s
Law, if you’re familiar and that has to do with
the exponential expansion of the capacity and
size of technology. We’re going to apply
this in a broader sense. In other words, new employment
sector skill adjustments being the amount of
time required to adapt to new emerging
employment sectors would need to be on pace with applied
technological advancement itself. For example, today
95% of America works in the service industry often now in front of computers.
People had to learn to do this, right? Being computer literate is almost a
prerequisite for everything we do now; so there is a learning
process and that takes time. Loosely speaking, this
adjustment period would need to increase at the same
rate as technological change. There is no evidence
this is happening. Technological process is leaving
the human labor market behind. I believe that the reason new emerging
sectors have consistently come about to save the human labor market as each
sector gets replaced by a machine is because the rate of change in
technology was not that dramatic at that point in time.
It hadn’t sped up as fast as it is now. The human mind and body, which
hasn’t really evolved that much in thousands of years, now has to
compete with its own creation. Mechanization is leaving us behind.
In other words we cannot adapt to the speed
of applied mechanization. However, that’s only
one side of the coin. The costs of computer technology, which
is the backbone of mechanization is now becoming exponentially
cheaper as well. The first mass produced calculators
were about $100 in 1949 that’s $736 adjusted
for inflation today. A new digital pocket
calculator can now be obtained for $1 or less if not free. Here is a chart done
by Ray Kurzweil who does brilliant research in
technological trend analysis regarding the evolution of
computer power and cost based on millions of
instructions per second. In 1990, we had one million
instructions per second for $1000. Ten years later, it was a
thousand million for $1000. Ten years later, it was a
million million, and by 2020 it will be a billion million
for the cost of $1000. If we apply this pattern to
technology as a whole and again this is speculative, but
we do see most everything reducing in cost, based on
the efficiency of production and if we apply this pattern to
the whole of applied invention this means it is simply a matter
of time before the corporations can no longer rationalize
their moral obligation to maintain their employees
for the sake of the system. The cost differential between
giving a human being a living wage versus automation will
be far too dramatic. It will be far too
cheap to mechanize. Economists will argue this.
They’ll say: “There’s a trickle down effect
and since the cost of production is consistently becoming cheaper, the
cost of goods will become cheaper and therefore, purchasing power
requirements of the individual becomes less.
” Sure, this might be historically true. I guess you could call it an
efficiency-based devaluation. However, that competitive decision is
entirely contingent upon the whims of the manufacturer; therefore, there
is a contradiction of motives. Remember, they get the
machines so they can cut costs so they can make more profit from
their current price structure. Once this occurs, we’re going to see
more unemployment and more instability; and sadly, instability is often the
prerequisite for social change. The problems constitute what
we call biosocial pressures. The more destabilized things
become the more motivation there will be to seek an alternative.
Of course, this is a delicate balance. I personally do not want to see
anymore suffering on this planet but my feelings have no relevance to
the patterns of social evolution. The Zeitgeist Movement
hopes to ease this issue by not only providing
people with an alternative in an intellectual and
statistically valid manner but also a strategy
to push forward to essentially push the establishment
to release their reigns of arrogance, power and inefficiency
and join the rest of the world in a common goal of
uninhibited sustainability. It is a mass awareness campaign by promoting essentially a
collective consciousness shift. We do this through a relentless,
global public awareness campaign which will, in time, hopefully
become so large in each country that the establishment will have
no choice but to pay attention. It is based on the model of Gandhi
and Martin Luther King, Jr. If the establishment orders and
government do not recognize this direction, then the public
has a very unique position. We don’t have to participate in
the games that have been set up. Nonviolent, peaceful,
nonparticipation is a possible path. Frankly, I hope it
won’t be needed. However, I think we
should be realistic. If the people of the world can see
this alternative, learn about it understand it and support it,
then no government, army or bureaucracy in existence
can stand in the way of a critical mass of
global proportions. I hope it doesn’t come to that. I hope that the powers that be can come
to terms with the fluid transition and see the merit of
what were talking about but, as we have shown, the established
orders do not have that propensity. It’s going to take influence,
that’s for sure. Given that, one of the
more specific tactics we want to utilize to engage the
public is to build a model city utilizing the methods and understandings
we have set forth thus far. This city system could be used as
a hub for research and exposure. The public, along with world leaders,
will be invited to visit and experience the basis of this approach
in a real-life setting. Then, in time, the
hope is that a country seeing the efficiency
of this small aspect will pick up the city model and
apply it within its own system. The city system isn’t a
Resource-Based Economy but it has some very notable
attributes in a systems approach. Then, in time, we hope these city
systems will begin to spread to other regions, slowly
wearing down the market system by their extreme efficiency. Hopefully, the logic will spread to
greater forms of central planning and resource management; and
hopefully the people of the world will awaken to a new paradigm. Again, there are many
angles of interaction. There could be an independent
council that consistently invites all world leaders to come to an
independent meeting about this project in hope that maybe they would
come together and talk about it. There are many other things I could say
on this complex issue of the transition and due to the allotment of time, I really
don’t want to spend that much more on it. What I will say for those who continue
to harp on it wanting details we can’t do anything until
there is a mass awareness so let’s focus on that
as the first step. In conclusion, the most
common negative reaction people have who consider the
tenets of a Resource-Based Economy tend to come up with something
called human nature. The argument is that humans
are inherently competitive greedy, blindly self-serving implying that no matter how technically
good things are in society there will always be corrupt
people who want to compete abuse others, and
seek dominance. Is it against human nature to cooperate?
That’s the central question. It certainly seems
that way, doesn’t it? If you look at the historical
record, you’ll find that there’s an endless series
of wars, genocides, conquests competitive tendencies,
and power abuses and given that is the pattern
we recognize historically I guess it’s safe to assume that
it must be a set human nature to behave in ways that are
historically reoccurring. However, we also see that
human beings do cooperate and we cooperate quite well
in certain environments. For example, in the military, cooperation
is immense. It is a collective. The core interest is culminated.
They work together and do so very well. Granted, they are competing
against a common enemy which is another army usually, but
it’s still cooperation, nevertheless even if it’s isolated. Therefore, the environment
plays a critical role on whether we decide to
compete or cooperate. It’s based on values, as groomed
by the environment, not genetics. Remember, humans have been living
in scarcity for thousands of years battling each other
for resources. While this cultural pattern is
still very much in existence today you have to remember that our
current model of society is based on the assumption of
the persistence of scarcity. If we were to eliminate the
basic environmental cause we will likely eliminate
most competitive effects. As far as genetics and
behavior, please understand the functionality of gene expressions
are very much contingent upon environmental stimulus,
especially in regard to behavior. Genes are not autonomous
initiators of commands. They, in effect,
produce proteins. They don’t cause behavior
in any sense of the idea. In the words of professor of biology
and neurology at Stanford University Dr. Robert Sapolsky “Genes are
rarely about inevitability especially when it comes to
humans, the brain or behavior. They’re about vulnerability,
propensities and tendencies.” Of course, neurochemicals
and physiological traits do set propensities for a person’s
reactions and social gravitation. It is the environment which is most
responsible for our values and behavior. I have found no concrete
evidence to support the idea that there is a predetermined
human nature in this sense. Our values, methods and actions are
developed and derived from experiences. The central point is that it
requires a transition of culture to assist in this new world view
being realized and identified with. Given that, I have one final point
I would like to leave you with. Anthropological studies have found that
cooperation between nonhuman primates often comes from the
notion of kinship. We humans share this as well.
For example most people tend to regard their
family higher than their friends. Just watch “The Sopranos” and you’ll
see this association in play. There’s their family and then there’s
their mafia family. It’s just a clique and these cliques
develop by association. Interestingly enough,
paleontologists have found that all of humanity seems to be
linked back to a woman they call Mitochondrial Eve who lived about
250,000 years ago in Africa. She evidently bore a mitochondrial
genome which was the template for all later mitochondrial
genomes as we know today. In other words,
we’re all related We’re all kin. We’re all family. Likewise, quantum mechanic
string theory, if you subscribe to these abstract fields, teach
us that the divisions we see in our five-sense reality are
essentially surface illusions. There is no separation.
We exist in a sea of molecular flow. It doesn’t matter what you
call it, but the deeper we go the more unified and similar
things seem to become. In other words, all
signs point to unity. I want everyone listening
to keep this in mind next time they turn on the
tv and see the almost daily slaughter of soldiers
around the world the blue and white collar
crime and abuse that occurs the absurd abject poverty,
slavery and destitution. These are your brothers, your
daughters, your grandchildren starving, murdering each other,
leaving each other behind. You murdered, you
being left behind you being killed. Until we begin to see each other
as ourselves, nothing will change. We are one planet.
Thank you very much for coming. www.thezeitgeistmovement.com

100 thoughts on “Peter Joseph – Where Are We Going?

  1. Well do you know how less fast chemical processes are against computer processes. Do not think they are going to kill us at once more like put us in camps and make us there slaves, like we do with people that we are just a bit superior to. And then TopologicalQuantumFieldComputing are vastly superior to computers, and they made some interesting discoveries 5 years ago. But sssschhhhhhh do not tell anyone how it can become very fast, they do not talk about it just jet!

  2. I most definitely agree, but like I said there is no reason, but I guess that is the reason, LAWS, SANCTIONS and RESTRICTIONS on TRADE are contributing to the starvation. Not to mention countries robbing those poor undeveloped countries of their natural resources.

  3. Way would not just a lot off more calculation mean that they could think 1.000.000.000.000.000 times faster than us. Remember we are not talking chemical thinking any more, but TopologicalQuantumFieldComputing way faster than what we have today. But in 20 years it could be a reality.

  4. mate 100% of my friends will just ignore it is so farking sad to see, also in the zeitgeist i dont know if any one else feels the same? but there where a few lines on how the establishment will use other people to keep u in line? i honestly feel silly when i share it on fb i feel like im the wierd one haha? cause is not something stupid or something funny i feel like im out of place, is amazing how the people in charge have set the standard of what is normal.
    is almost like a mind control.

  5. We should re-upload it with the title Gangnam Style Remix. tbh though half that billion views are idiots who won't bother to watch it nor take action.

  6. no company would do that. but 3d printing in every one's house can do that. 3d printing creates better, stronger, lighter products without attached components.

  7. Yeh, Zeitgeist isn't exactly something you can just bring up to people and expect them to be interested and understand. You have to be on a very specific path to end up here.

  8. 3d printers are still developing and have a high price tag right now, one the common folk can't afford. If prices do drop and they become practical to use yes I see they would be helpful in ending this corporate greed we call the monetary system.However I do think they may become regulated. i.e. a bogus mass killing crime from a 3d printed gun used to champion regulation of 3d printers.

  9. Wouldn't longer product life slow down upgrades and new inventions? I mean most look forward to a new iPhone every few years.

  10. This guy needs to read up on communism this system what he is describing is communism I truly don't understand the difference.

  11. Peter is unrealistic to think of a world without problems….and the only way to motivate people to solve these problems i by paying them money

  12. If I believe that we are all One, and that "my neighbor is me", we will fall in the trap of only wanting to help ourselves. It is precisely because my neighbor is not me, that I should help him.

  13. Not almost, it is, Troy…all, by design, & it's to be expected. We've all been there(the position; being the weird one, etc., that you speak of), & it isn't much fun & can be quite damaging to every aspect of ones life, even career, etc. I guess the value is in who you become, facing these things. Your wisdom is admirable. Just keep on evolving that "stand alone" spirit, & keep on being you. Just to Be In Conversation, not react-attack-fear, w/ one's community & peers would be so "Human."

  14. Peter Joseph is a modern day prophet. The intelligent design of society is inevitable because the new generations will find its value irresistible.

  15. Our insanely high rate of imprisonment is not just about economic stratification. It's about our collective will. It's about the failure or inability of individual people to directly help the people in their lives who are in need, our failure as a culture to promote compassion for others, and our failure as a country to address poverty, education, mental illness, and addiction in effective ways using the latest scholarship. We ignore these things, hide them away in prisons. It reflects our soul.

  16. The values of the dominant class are irrational, they keep on seeking growth while that's impossible, they keep on using practical science for their businesses, but they aren't scientific at all when it comes to society and the laws of nature, they want to push their dogmatic values with no regard to the resources or anything that we need to survive as a specie. We have technology and science, let's use it for the well-being of all humanity and not just for a dogmatically superior minority.

  17. Just out of curiosity, has anyone wondered how sexual competition factors into this vision of society? It seems to me that next to economic competition (which arguably is often merely a manifestation sexual competition) sexual competition may be another important cause of many of the social ills an RBE seeks to minimize/eliminate? So how does social competition derived from sexual desire change with RBE implementation, or is it assumed that the absence of money somehow obsoletes this?

  18. the point regarding prison population v income inequality is distorted by the privatised prison system in the US and the corruption that creates resulting in long terms from minor crimes.

  19. the transition won't come from a political decision, it will come through purchasing a large piece of land and volunteers moving there – the rest will follow.

  20. The way genders are depicted through the media and sometimes religion has a huge influence on this currently (a negative one), but honestly I don't know.

  21. "The values of the dominant class are irrational, they keep on seeking growth while that's impossibl"
    people like bigger familes, hence populatoin growth. They only cease produce them when faced with rationing, or other resource-intensive distractions. ("i dont want kids because i want to keep my quality of life..")

    the dominant class evolved to give the masses what they want. If they dont, they are replaced in revolutions.

    the population explosion is the driving factor

  22. I'm not talking about gender roles within society. I'm asking what happens to the basic primal urges of men to mate with women and women to mate with men? In my mind, it seems that a very significant part of the drive to out compete each other economically and socially stems from this innate desire to be perceived as a fit mate. Not to mention the murders and rapes that result from sexual jealousy or unabated desire. So what happens to all this in an RBE? Are there still police to catch rapists?

  23. Sure I would agree that serial rapists are mentally compromised. But would you really say that everybody who rapes and/or murders is sick? B/C to me that appears to be a disturbing oversimplification of human behavior. I think that there are some people who rape out of sexual frustration, and that there are some murders that occur from sexual jealousy (e.g. cheating spouse, jealous lover). I do think that people who commit these crimes are clear criminals,

  24. But I'm not sure that they can be classified as patients requiring treatment either. So I agree with you when you say that simply throwing them in prison solves nothing, but what does throwing them in a mental institution solve? At the end of the day the issue was that they allowed the perfectly natural drive for a sexual partner to commit a heinous crime, and there's really no way to ever rectify it.

  25. And I think it's this same drive which subconsciously propels us to compete with each other economically and is the real root cause of the social problems an RBE tries to fix. So what gets done about this? Or is it conceded that there is no simple solution at this time?

  26. And where is that? I may not agree with him 100% but its people like him that are at least opening eyes and not walking around like zombies to the elites of the country.

  27. People have to understand: Jacque Fresco & Peter Joseph is in no way saying "Come here, we have the perfect solution". What they are trying to make people realize is that they have a MUCH BETTER solution to our problems, than the people in power are using.
    I hope we can all agree that this system that we live in today, is NOT working. So why is it that you keep protecting it? Whole country act like people with Stockholm Syndrome. Protecting the thing, that's ruining your lifes O.o ..
    WAKE UP!

  28. I'm up to optimisation of production, and up until that point it was really good. The trouble with robots doing all our work for us, is that such technology has only come about because of the inequalities of our current way of life. Rich people commission middle class people to design and manufacture robots so they don't have to employ working class people. If you had a society without money where everyone had all their desires, you wouldn't be able to get them to make robots without forced labour.

  29. Wow I'm really impressed with exactly how much of the logistics he covered, much more than Marx did in his time. I could very possibly see this as the start of a model to work around towards a future that is more similar to this but of course not to the letter. I think he underestimates the dissonant cultures that will have to come forward, some that don't believe in the fundamental principles of science, and unite in order to make the system work worldwide. But I am personally a great fan of destroying the destructive and divisive competition that makes life 'nasty, brutish, and short.'  

    Even if a fraction of the world began to live like this and it became a movement with  a foothold in the world, this will be a resounding success. 

  30. Google needs to join The Venus Project. The part where Peter talks about the intelligent computer database that answers questions automatically made me think of Google, and how much potential it has to help the project. They should be approached if they haven't already.

  31. Probably the single most overlooked feature of this talk is the continual narrowing of thought in universities. When ideology geverns what can be discussed in acedamia, thinkers must find another home. Unfortunately, the internet, by nature does not allow for proper rebuttal of ideas. The "zeitgeist" idea, becomes a " movement" and maintains its wide-eyed idealism and glaring contradictions. The idea that " a little education is a dangerous thing" is lost forever.

  32. What Peter mentions concerning hydrponics, people can make their own kits. They can go to homehydrosystems dot com and figure out how to build them themselves. I'm only half way in, so I don't yet know if he's going to talk about a trasition using the current system in place to what he's advocating here.  

  33. In an insane world even a normal thinking person looks like a genius. 
    Beside that 51 none humans have seen this video :O

  34. This could well be the future. A blueprint for mans survival for thousands of years more. Imagine what could be, if we achieve a positive peaceful future. 

    When the basic needs are satisfied, good food, good health service, good housing, good education for all with modest birth rate. It must be possible to satisfy all human needs with the productive power of automation not requiring great amounts of work as we know it from mankind.Then there is true freedom. The freedom from slave jobs, domination, and fear.

    Some believe only competition, and fear can motivate . They are anachronistic idiots. There will always be competition, but it does not have to be on the existential level.   
     I approve of Zeitgeists view, and analyse, but I get the feeling there should be some discussion with psychologists/ sociologist. This amount of people engineering reminds me of the highest hopes of communism.  A brave new world where all will be social, and responsible.
     Where have all the damaged people gone ?There are families with a culture of criminality, and ant social thinking. Where will all that go ? There are families with a dominance, psychopathic culture. People who do not know what to do if they are not damaging others in some way. I don't believe material satisfaction will quiet these people. 

  35. Peter Joseph's philosophy is nothing else but a twisted Marxism, a modern version of communism. Very efficiently mixing lot of truth with BS. 

  36. Absolutely visionary presentation.. Such a macro scale look at who and what we are and where we need to go needs to be shown across the world regularly until everyone has an opportunity to consider it, weigh it against the history of our species and discover through consensus the best way to implement it.

  37. One thing I´m questioning, although I agree with almost everything said up to now, is how human beings will manage their time after automation.  I´m afaid they might have too much time on their hands and hope they do not fall into negative behaviors.  That´s something that needs to be considered.  Another thing is if the implementation of the new system ever takes place, there may be resistance on the basis of uncertainty.  Now, I am very much for exploring possible, sensible futures, however, I do have trouble imagining a transition or a coherent one because most of us are simply not that coherent or lets say trusting of others coherence.  Anyhow, these types of documentaries are very important because they help shape human thought and make us wonder and study other possibilities.  All of what Peter Joseph says makes sense to me, and I understand him perfectly.  But we need to help everyone understand the validity of this, which may not be easy considering that we have been indoctrinated differently or have acquired certain" favorable positions", which in the long run will amount to nothing, because we are depleting the Earth.

  38. As a gay man I have always held the belief we are all one in unity and that the sort of world view proposed here is the only logical out come for the survival of the human species.  However there are those who are out to destroy any one who is of a different thought to them and this has little if any thing to do with their economic , social or property statutes. Its usually more to do with their clan ship religious and cultural attachments or their own suppressed desires that they attack those who are different to them.  so far in Peters lectures and in the Zeitgeist movement generally I have not found any material or people who are approaching this topic .
    In general I am in agreement with much of what is being put forward here. The exposure of the myth of religion is similar to my own writings on the topic of all religion being an extension of the ancient shamanic laws and customs that we call Paganism, Wicca, Voodoo, and many other concepts that where embodied in early society as codes of oral tradition that helped the human race to survive within the environment of this planet. It is however difficult to see how we will ever as a human species make the transition. In some ways the teaching of Gautama, Jesus and Zarathustra in the Gathers purported the same ideas and yet here we are today !  with ISIS declaring its new Caliphate largely to achieve a state free from capitalism and a global market economy  based on fundamental Sharia Law. How is that fitting with world peace and a united humanity ? Though it may well lead to a period of destruction that achieves the zeitgeist ideal after the dust has settled and the survivors realize the need for such a world state. 

  39. Social health and human well being will always come second to monetary gain, wow such an incredible statement.

  40. The fundamental problem behind the economic system has to do with the corrupt nature of mankind, and by that I mean the mythological concept which the Bible illustrates with the Fall in the Garden of Eden. It's a predetermined element which transcends any element of autonomy to the human person. In the healthy mind, ideally speaking, there is a harmonious symbiotic relationship between its various faculties, between its representational faculties (aesthetic judgment, moral judgment) and its objective faculties (scientific, mathematical judgment). (There is also a symbiosis between the mind and the external world). My idea claims that the fall induced a fragmented moral and aesthetic faculty which was universal to all human beings. As a result the symbiotic dialectic (which actually incorporates both the mathematical and space time continuums) was caused to be nihilistic where the moral, and aesthetic faculties are gradually eroded and collapse over time in a nihilistic symbiosis they have with scientific judgment. In the last approximately 200 years this nihilistic symbiosis has become very clear, although it has been going on for much longer than that, I would say about 35,000 years.

    If you study Hegel and Marx the relationship between the mind and the economic system becomes very clear. The economic system, the culture, religion, every aspect to human civilization are all connected and are all an extension and reflection of the human mind. So naturally if the mind is virtually disintegrating, and being driven to the nihilistic and purely objective and scientific (in a dialectical nihilism) then the economic system, the culture are going to reflect that. And that is what we have today.

    Now this is not to say that there are not truly evil people at the top who have an effect on this. There are and they have compounded this problem I am sure. But this nihilistic process would occur regardless of the evil people. It's based on something extraneous to the human person and something which we are all victims of, and something also I would say is just about played out and cannot further occur. And I think that remedy will be in the new world, the theocratic kingdom of Jesus Christ, where the human being and its faculties are renewed.

  41. Lawyers are not trained to solve practical infrastructural problems, yes,  but that does not mean that the solutions to infrastructural problems will be universal in their effects, or that the solution to the economic predicament is found in the infrastructure. This problem cannot be solved. It has no solution because the problem is in the nature of the human being himself which is corrupt and fragmented. The only thing you can do is wait for the fire to burn out. The fire is going to continue to burn and there is no extinguishing it.

  42. *PLEASE BE INFORMED ABOUT BASIC FACTS OF THE ARABIC LANGUAGE* 
    LIST OF ALFABET-CHARACTERS OF ARABIC AND THEIR MEANING AND NUMBER:
    http://www.aramaicwords.nl/pdf/rootsArabic2q.pdf

  43. This is probable. 1:33:04 Im freaking getting teary eyed about how this world is…fucking corporate thug, banker, marketing CUNTS…JUNK JUNK JUNK…i dont wanna own a fucking thing…not a fucking THING…Youtube just redeemed its reason for existing

  44. His argument for how a monopoly is formed in a free market is stupid. What is it, after all, that we dislike about monopolies? The fact that they can increase prices or lower the quality of their product without the consumer being able to shop elsewhere. Well, if you want to call a company that offers the public a better trade value than its competitors, thus driving its competition out of the market, a monopoly, it isn't. I don't see a problem with this supposed "monopoly" that he speaks of.In his example if that regional monopoly were to raise its prices it would just open the door for new competition. Monopolies can only be formed with the help of government legislation.

  45. Erm if society is responsible for everything everybody does, where did society come from?
    It`s not just how much inequality there is it is the reason for it. We should be mature enough to not get angry when somebody does more work than we do and gets more stuff. Yes people are shaped by their environment. That also means we can be taught the difference between right and wrong. Inequality is bad when people w ho work more get less, and people who work less get more. When people get materially ahead in life not because of the contribution they make but based on what they own or what they inherited. That`s injustice, that is what angers people and causes them to act immorally, because they feel they are being unjustly treated. And the solution is real decentralized worker management of enterprises, the original socialism.

  46. Total utopia…cannot be implemented…robot, technology and mecanisation are not really advance at great speed cheaper but we have no flying saucer. And big pocket will never let their property just go for the community…they love the power.

  47. i am like 80% into this video and i kinda get the feeling that he just say "we can build computers for that, we get technologi for that, people will never make bad calls or anything, everybody will be happy all the time" it feels like he just replaces the idear of a God with a supercomputer and the ten comandments with an algorytme… that being said i do like his notions on engergy and the cope of his vision. there are some who say no to vacines in the face of all the evidence that vacines works or swear to stuff like Braclets made out of materials that cure you of cancer in the face of all the scientific evidence that it do not work, so what do you so with all these people? i mean if it is ass clear and easy as he says wouldn't everyone just do it right now?

  48. hello everyone,  I'm running 'TZM boinc project' facebook page, the ideas is to build a strong team of volonter that wanna give idle computer time for scientific research. We currently running  [email protected] as main project. Visit us for more informations.

  49. i really like most of the ideas presented here i do have an issue with a few things however. i noticed a pattern with both Peter Joseph of the Zeitgeist movement  and Jacque Fresco of the Venus project to slam religion and  rightly so. religion is one thing and the bible and Jesus is something else. corrupt men are in every area of our society.there are tons of examples where religious people have pushed aside the desires of God and brought harm, control, legalistic bondage to people. but Jesus Christ came to correct the bigger issue that is even larger than the social economics that Joseph speak of. this is the heart of men. this was the purpose of the change. Jesus was the change he was looking for. as we often quote Mahatma Gandhi. the first Adam brought sin into the world and Jesus the last Adam corrected the lost. now we have to chose which way we want to live. for the love and way of God or man's way that kill and destroys everything he touches.    well  it seam to me that that both are really saying what the bible says. do onto others as you would have them do unto you. Joseph has great arguments against the  competitive nature of our economic system and the system it self is the problem and i agree so does the bible. the LOVE of money is the ROOT of all evil. the new testament system in the book of acts is people  loving for one another. also the DNA thing about all coming from one is really the Eve of the bible. they try to rule out the ten commandment as outdated mindsets. when in fact if you really studied it (with all religion aside) its really all about relationship and how we treat God and each other.  even his name first and last are both biblical names. how ironic! in all honesty all they are talking about it getting back to the Garden of Eden. man living in oneness with God, each other and nature. the is what the bible is all about. lol its funny how they try to discount it and then recreate it but try to excluded God the creator of it all. in fact Joseph facts on resource and the proper use of technology show that God has made the provision but the evil in the hearts of men is the only reason for the suffering we see. there is a much larger issue (the heart's of men) that is given lip service to at the end. it has been addressed by Jesus Christ. i think we should move towards this kind of world. but we all know the one world government spoken of in the bible is real and they will sabotage what ever we try to do to align ourselves with godly desires. but that is not reason enough for us to not try. just watch out that you dont put God out of it or the new world order will do what has done with every other movement. take it over for its own purposes (this is what the anti-christ will promise) or destroy it. be careful out there Peter Joseph. even though you try to put God out he has not put you out.

  50. These guys need some philosophy and economics lessons. This would be a horrible way to live, utopia is dystopia. What all their ideas lack is a cost accounting for the scarcity of energy and the cost of capital(energy). This stuff isn't built because we couldn't recoup the energy required for their creation. Physics is a bitch, many things are they way they are because it's physics.

  51. Until we can remove the gene that cause laziness, we can not combine Affection with Progress without sacrificing Sustainability. Universal Basic Income would be a great test the water for Zeitgeist movement though.

  52. Even if we were to disregard the idea that we should all deal with one another morally and voluntarily and let Peter plan out the running of the world on his completely utilitarian guided philosophy, (a philosophy that has been espoused many times and whose actual implementation echoes thru the mass graves of many a failed planned state), who would get to decide what jobs each human would do, how many hours they would work, what they would produce, how many children they could have, who they could mate with?  Marx couldn't see how how a free capitalist society would lift up the poor labor class either so I don't fault Peter.  Monoploies, by definition, are only possible when governments restrict free entry into a certain market.  Just being big or the only provider of a good does not make it a monopoly.  And the gubbermint did create "The WAR on poverty" and yes it failed.  Moocherslooters (with their utopian cries and gun under the table) will not want you to listen, but here's a pretty good explanation of what money represents: /watch?v=LTQqFGLDdJ0

  53. Except for the use of the made-up word "zeitgeist" which is part of the strange social fascination with presenting German as a language of "matterhood" like English, Peter has created some excellent thought-provoking material as a good basis for discussion.
    BUT – The use of strange German composites seems to be becoming even more popular and thus making intelligent discourse and analysis even more difficult in subjects like Social Evolution.
    That's all the ponderous Germanic pastiche actually means when expressed in English.
    In English we can even simply modify it even more specifically to "Societal Evolution".  A great early paper by Kylneth.
    However – I am so impressed by Peter Joseph's never-ending patient restating of his analysis of the possibilities of Societal Evolution, that I'd join in, except for THAT "Elephant in the room", that actually is the cause and effect of civilisation……

  54. RBE always mistakenly compares Capitalism to perfection. The point is that USA markets are more free, than not ,in most of the USA economic areas. Therefore we can conjecture what freer markets would give us: more freedom, more wealth, etc…

    Any economist will tell you that RBE is just warmed over marxist collectivism with the new twist of slave robots somehow making marginal production cost zero. The worst part is RBE refuses to admit that any 1960s hippie common is a good proxy for judging the possible success for RBE. RBE being a robot run commune is no better able for success than pie in the sky communal dreams stoked by WoodStock in the late 1960s that ended in bitter tears via the Rolling Stones debacle at Altamonte later that same year.

  55. The city he describes is a near utopian paradise and it's amazing how it IS possible and CAN be done but instead we're stuck here in this shit storm were people are scraping by just to survive and everything else that's wrong with the current system… It depresses me that this alternative way of life will never be implemented in my lifetime, there's more of a chance of nuclear catastrophe which (by the way things are going now) is almost inevitable.

  56. someone needs to explain the chemtrails being daily sprayed with toxic jet fuel, aluminum, lithium and other harmful metals. Dying trees, fish, bees and millions of sea mammals. polluting everything. The fluoride dumped in our water. The GMOS that are causing disease. How about address those things.

  57. This is my philosophy, and my greatest hope. I will never see it in my life, but I can hope.

    I am amazed that the cartels, or the FED hasn't put a bullet in Peter Joseph, or the Venus Project creator, Jacque Fresco .

  58. This new system will have to be enforced. Not one sentence has been devoted to discussion of violence and opposition. And there was a statement that once the people find out how good this is, nothing can stop global change. Yet it's estimated that all you need to control an entire population is a group 5% the size of that population. Also, brushing off the relevance of 1984 is a dead giveaway for the speaker's intentions. Also, don't make your buildings white. Come to Manila and look at the US Embassy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *