We don't yet have the technical capacity to travel to and from Mars. This is not comparable or relevant to what is being discussed.
If you choose to let yourself be limited by philosophy, then this approach might not be readily understandable to you. But I'm certain it will become clearer if you think about it.
Philosophy is not irrelevant, but crucial to understanding and learning of our universe. That is how we master the physical universe. Where does science come from? Natural philosophy. Likewise, economic forces determine success and failure of technologies. Where do you think bitcoin come from? It's from the study of cryptography, economic, programming and political philosophy. It is because our benefactor understand these fields that he was able to bring bitcoin to us, and now bitcoiners are able nurture and curate its potential into reality. These RBE folk seek technology to allow humans to allocate resources effectively. Bitcoin IS THE TECHNOLOGICAL breakthrough that these RBE people seek! Bitcoin will allow humans to allocate scares resources effectively! All RBE people should start adopting Bitcoin! Q.E.D. I wouldn't go quite that far, but it has the potential to be highly disruptive and is obviously a better and more efficient currency system. Most of the alt-currencies that are being used in local chapters are more like time-banks and the like meant for community cohesion. What this offers is a global economy free of the old institutions in every way, and that is something that should really be exciting. I look forward to this better model making the current one obsolete, and that is really the way to get things adopted. It's not exactly in line with what an RBE is, but it is lightyears beyond what is being done now, and that is an encouraging development in my opinion. Thanks to all of you who are engaging me in this discussion about these ideas. I very much enjoy having my thoughts challenged and I hope you do as well. |
|
|
|
|
Stephen Colbert Presents:
Coinering the Cryptconomy
An Exploration of the New Work Block Exchains
A Mineumental Bitstitution of Hashtastic Proportions
Death of the Old Hard Cashscape
|
|
|
|
I don't see how the goal of helping all people live better can be unraveled because of irrelevant philosophies. There are steps to accomplishing Goals. You don't start with the end Goal, and get everyone to accept it. Here is a Goal, lets colonize Mars. You don't start by selling the tickets though. If you did, imagine the results as ticket holders died waiting to get there. We don't yet have the technical capacity to travel to and from Mars. This is not comparable or relevant to what is being discussed. If you choose to let yourself be limited by philosophy, then this approach might not be readily understandable to you. But I'm certain it will become clearer if you think about it. |
|
|
|
It is not about the technology, it never was, and it never will be. The rational use and distribution of resources has always been a matter of will, as it is now, and as it will continue to be. To look upon technology as a panacea is to ignore the lessons of history. There are wonderful technologies that are decades, and even centuries old, which could deliver tremendous benefits to humanity... The obstacles to their use are in the choices we collectively make and the will to implement them. As it is with many of the solutions lauded by the Zeitgeist Movement and its satellites, none will be adopted in any significant manner until the will exists to do so.
There is a reason why the 'New Left' faded to obscurity, this is due to us becoming so enamored with mass media and its collective vision. Until those in the Zeitgeist Movement recognize the origin of the philosophies it purports to advance and comes to terms with the inherent contradiction in the way it has been re-packaged by Fresco and Merola nothing of substance will happen. The problem is that they have been trying to impose a certain objectivism on the thoughts of Marcuse, who was a radical subjectivist. The result is that the whole case is built up around Marcuse to describe the problem, then Fresco jumps in with his own subjective vision, posing it as an objective solution. There is a huge disconnect here and Zeitgeist, et al. will never be able to bridge this gap as such. There is an attempt to spin Marcuse in an objective manner, and the problem starts here. The only way forward is to actually embrace the subjectivism of Herbert Marcuse and encourage individuals to form their own visions instead of trying to impose Fresco's.
I just have no idea what you guys are fricking talking about. This is where much of the thinking behind the Zeitgeist Movement comes from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_MarcuseBut, this is not discussed by its leaders because it would foment a philosophical discussion which could undermine their aims. Philosophical and semantic arguments are a fun distraction, but real problems are technical and concrete, and demand technical and concrete solutions. The most elegant and efficient technical solution is of no matter if nobody implements it. The only thing the Zeitgeist Movement is engaged in now is philosophical and semantic arguments through the instrument of the media it produces and promotes. The reason Fresco and Merola can not delve into the origins of the Zeitgeist philosophy is that it would begin to unravel... And that is all they have. I don't see how the goal of helping all people live better can be unraveled because of irrelevant philosophies. |
|
|
|
It is not about the technology, it never was, and it never will be. The rational use and distribution of resources has always been a matter of will, as it is now, and as it will continue to be. To look upon technology as a panacea is to ignore the lessons of history. There are wonderful technologies that are decades, and even centuries old, which could deliver tremendous benefits to humanity... The obstacles to their use are in the choices we collectively make and the will to implement them. As it is with many of the solutions lauded by the Zeitgeist Movement and its satellites, none will be adopted in any significant manner until the will exists to do so.
There is a reason why the 'New Left' faded to obscurity, this is due to us becoming so enamored with mass media and its collective vision. Until those in the Zeitgeist Movement recognize the origin of the philosophies it purports to advance and comes to terms with the inherent contradiction in the way it has been re-packaged by Fresco and Merola nothing of substance will happen. The problem is that they have been trying to impose a certain objectivism on the thoughts of Marcuse, who was a radical subjectivist. The result is that the whole case is built up around Marcuse to describe the problem, then Fresco jumps in with his own subjective vision, posing it as an objective solution. There is a huge disconnect here and Zeitgeist, et al. will never be able to bridge this gap as such. There is an attempt to spin Marcuse in an objective manner, and the problem starts here. The only way forward is to actually embrace the subjectivism of Herbert Marcuse and encourage individuals to form their own visions instead of trying to impose Fresco's.
I just have no idea what you guys are fricking talking about. This is where much of the thinking behind the Zeitgeist Movement comes from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_MarcuseBut, this is not discussed by its leaders because it would foment a philosophical discussion which could undermine their aims. Philosophical and semantic arguments are a fun distraction, but real problems are technical and concrete, and demand technical and concrete solutions. |
|
|
|
The movement has started, and we are working towards our goals. To assert otherwise would be incorrect.
Your pipe dream plan seems to require getting lot of people to understand first before you "do something". The bitcoin project doesn't exactly works that way. We educate/advertise the project, but we also do something. We invent and hack as we go. Since you haven't been paying attention, I will state once again that the vast majority of the technical and scientific understanding to make this plan work is already available and in working order today.We need people to understand that we can scale these systems out to help produce abundantly for all people. If people don't know and understand this, then they continue to be subject to the whims of the minority in power and will continue to suffer. Unfortunately, many people are so deeply integrated into our current system that they would actively reject anything different even if it would be in their best interest not to. These are the obstacles we must overcome. |
|
|
|
We should declare the earth and all its resources as the common heritage of all people, as we recognize that we are transient caretakers of a finite planet. We recognize that all people can work together for the benefit of mankind in a collaborative and cooperative effort to allow each person to reach their highest potential.
You use the word "we" a lot. Who does "we" include, and not include? Clearly it doesn't include the people who are criticizing your ideas, because all "we" seems to do is agree with them. So what happens to the people who don't fall under the category of "we"? I refer to the people who understand the ideas and goals of an RBE and work towards those ends. Admittedly there are very few, but we are working towards helping people come to understand what we're doing and why it is a better alternative to what is being done now. We intend to build a model that makes the current paradigm obsolete, so the number of people who disagree or don't understand will be reduced significantly as they are able to see how these ideas are beneficial to all people. Nothing "happens" to them. |
|
|
|
Individuals do not invent things, they must build on the work of others and of natural phenomenon.
I said great pipe dreams started work best when you can start with one person. Satoshi Nakamoto certainly builds on the work of others, but he doesn't need a team to start work on the project. Remember the key word, start. The movement has started, and we are working towards our goals. To assert otherwise would be incorrect. |
|
|
|
I just want to watch the fireworks.
Yes, I taken the light hearted approach of amusing myself with their silly strange dream. I don't have anything wrong with pipe dreams, just incoherent and unrealistic ones. Good pipe dreams are the kind of things that can be started with just one person, like Satoshi Nakamoto's invention of bitcoin. Individuals do not invent things, they must build on the work of others and of natural phenomenon. |
|
|
|
Many people project their fears into what they don't understand, so I can see why it may seem frightening.
That's why I'm asking for a simple explanation. if, as you say, it's simple to understand then spell it out for us simpletons. It would help if you don't presume things that you don't know. If you have a preconceived and unalterable notion about the ideas I advocate, then explaining things to you simply will not be productive. I shall persevere, however. As stated previously, we have the ability to feed, house, provide medical care and a relevant education to all people given what we know, understand and can implement today. We can choose to significantly reduce the problems of crime, poverty, hunger disease and needless suffering if we had a true desire to resolve these technical problems. The dominant culture we have, however, does not promote these goals, and instead manipulate the great majority of us into believing that we should instead strive for individual accomplishment, acquisition and wealth. This is done to promote and preserve the current established institutions and the false authority they have over the majority. The current system we have in place is wasteful, abusive and destructive, both to people and the environment that sustains us. We are rapidly accelerating into an inevitable clash between a financial system that unsustainably and inefficiently borrows against the resources of the earth and its people's lives, and the natural and fundamental laws of nature. We can no longer continue at our current and predicted consumption trends any longer, and to do so would be suicidal at every level of life. What we propose is submission to the true authority of the laws of nature, and the recognition that we live in a symbiotic and emergent system that requires constant monitoring and adjustment to maintain dynamic equilibrium. We should declare the earth and all its resources as the common heritage of all people, as we recognize that we are transient caretakers of a finite planet. We recognize that all people can work together for the benefit of mankind in a collaborative and cooperative effort to allow each person to reach their highest potential. We can achieve these goals by determining all current resources available to us, analyze all relevant and available data, and act on this information along with previously established scientific principles to produce the infrastructure, goods and services needed to meet all human necessity. In the absence of relevant scarcity, the idea of a scarcity-based market with its attendant principles of currency and private property will become obsolete. We will value human life and the environment that sustains it, not because it is a "good" or "right" thing to do, but it is the only rational course of action if we desire to live and prosper as individuals and as a species. |
|
|
|
Our plan's initial procedure requires a large number of child processes to spawn and complete before we can execute the next procedure. This is not something that is impossible to execute or difficult to understand.
I do not see any child processes spawning. All I see is a bunch of...rocks. I think you are choosing to be absurd at this point. |
|
|
|
This is not something that is impossible to execute or difficult to understand.
Then explain it in layman's terms. All I see is Marxism with robots. I would love to be proven me wrong. Define what you mean by Marxism. it's the intermediary step between capitalism and communism where the confiscation of private property occurs. As I understand it all resources will be allocated by a central authority so it seems like the best description to me. and that was some mighty fine misdirection. Mind explaining now  We advocate decentralized planning and resource allocation, not central authority. We do not advocate taking away property of any sort. The idea of private property is a reaction to scarcity, and there will be little need to claim individual items as your own, barring access to all others, when you have access to all the necessities of life. Many people project their fears into what they don't understand, so I can see why it may seem frightening. |
|
|
|
This is not something that is impossible to execute or difficult to understand.
Then explain it in layman's terms. All I see is Marxism with robots. I would love to be proven me wrong. Define what you mean by Marxism. |
|
|
|
Jacob Spinney has an excellent YouTube video critiquing the Venus Project: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhNoUW4UTpIIt's 54:13 long, and I have only watched the first 5 minutes, but he has already exposed and destroyed several logical fallacies. This video does no such thing. It invokes the fantasy of a free market, and asserts a common unit of exchange. Any arbitrary unit of exchange favors one group of individuals over another, and unless you have competing units of exchange, the same behavior will persist that we have today. And if you did have a truly free market with competing units, then what you really have is a return to the barter system, which is primitive, impractical and unnecessary. |
|
|
|
Do you have any actual criticisms or do you just plan on ridiculing every explanation I proffer as "it is slow and will never work"?
I am a computer geek. I don't understand grand plans and grand actions that take forever to execute. Our plan's initial procedure requires a large number of child processes to spawn and complete before we can execute the next procedure. This is not something that is impossible to execute or difficult to understand. |
|
|
|
We are in the awareness and educational phase of our operation. Meaninful action can only be achieved after critical mass of understanding is achieved. This is meant to be a concerted and global effort. But, we do expect to start regionally with a test city as a proof of concept. I understand how this might seem frustrating for you to understand, but there is a methodology and plan involved in what we are doing.
That is not a plan. That is the slowest OODA loop ever. Do you have any actual criticisms or do you just plan on ridiculing every explanation I proffer as "it is slow and will never work"? |
|
|
|
We are in the awareness and educational phase of our operation. Meaninful action can only be achieved after critical mass of understanding is achieved. This is meant to be a concerted and global effort. But, we do expect to start regionally with a test city as a proof of concept. I understand how this might seem frustrating for you to understand, but there is a methodology and plan involved in what we are doing. |
|
|
|
Are you saying nothing good ever came from conversation?
Never said that, but execution is the hallmark of success. Which is why we are urging people to action, to support these ideas and goals, and to help others demand a change in the way things are being done. It would be unrealistic to produce these results on a global scale with any immediacy. I do sympathize with those who are impatient and would like to make things better RIGHT NOW, but I severely doubt it will happen this way. |
|
|
|
.
So sure, if you wish to ignore the ideas and real technologies and research we present and all of the educational and awareness efforts we engage in, then yes, all we do is "make and promote media".
Whatever, man. Your movement is a talker, not a doer. Are you saying nothing good ever came from conversation? |
|
|
|
So basically, the Zeitgeist Movement makes movies, holds events to promote the movies they make, and raises money to make more movies. Yes, it would be great if you could get the Venus Project to accept Bitcoin donaitons. But, you know, I have seen all the Zeitgeist movies and I have to say that the second and third episodes seemed like re-packaged versions of the first one, with maybe 90% re-hashed material. It would be pretty hard for me to get excited about funding another one unless there were some fresh material about real wheels on the ground stuff that people are doing to change things. I'll bet it would be a lot easier to get people in the Bitcoin community to be interested in helping to fund something like that if it contained a segment featuring Bitcoin...
The Austin, TX chapter has a weekly public access television show that also showcases these ideas and related technologies. It's going on right now if you want to check it out! So basically as chodpaba says, "the Zeitgeist Movement makes [media promoting the movement], holds events to promote the [media] they make, and raises money to make more [media]." Yes, we make educational and informational material available for all to see, free of charge, to learn about ideas and technologies that they won't be exposed to by the main stream media. We also promote these ideas and technologies by holding free public events for the community and help organize them into projects that can have direct impact on that community. We also develop the technical infrastructure to help make this information accessible to more people by undertaking massive, volunteer based translation efforts for dozens of languages. We also ask for funds only for specific projects when necessary in order to develop an idea fully. Individual members also produce presentations and [urlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2nxCp9Hwxs]video[/url] series highlighting the various technical and scientific breakthroughs being made on a daily basis that will help bring this idea to fruition. We also maintain a website that continuously updates with information about such technology and research (ad-free btw) for all to access and learn from. Not to mention all the general street activism that we engage in every day in nearly every country. So sure, if you wish to ignore the ideas and real technologies and research we present and all of the educational and awareness efforts we engage in, then yes, all we do is "make and promote media". |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
