Mmm Coffee Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0xx Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 Hmmm... the new zeitgeist movie is out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I've Killed for Less Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 I'm about 2 hours in right now and LOVING it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liadon Xiloscient Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 This is an excellent watch. Thank for the link! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mmm Coffee Posted January 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 Glad you guys appreciate the message...share with others! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 Out of curiosity... does it at least make more sense than the first Zeitgeist movie? Because the first movie took a one-way trip to crazytown pretty fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mmm Coffee Posted January 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 The first movie was an art project that went "viral" (Peter Joseph is a musician/producer/art student) It's eye-opening. However, he admits it was his way of venting. After that he meets Jacque Fresco of the Venus Project and together the two have combined to create a movement towards a Resource-based Economy using today's technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0xx Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 I haven't watched this part yet, but the first and second part was quite good. Especially the line they draw and conclusions they made about religions, faith and terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Part 1 - Human Nature 30-ish minutes in - liking it so far. Lots of good information on human development and human nature, particularly on the interplay between genetics and environmental factors. 35:40 - Woah... red flag. "Organized group violence is not something that occurred" in ancient hunter/gatherer societies? Where's this guy pulling that out of? I know of several anthropologists/archaeologists who would happily disagree. The "Noble Savage" myth seems at play. 42 - End of part 1, "Human Nature" - As said, good overview of human development and human nature. Last few minutes bring up how different societal structures and ideologies can result in vastly different types of behavior, and how there are some basic human needs for maintaining social/personal well-being (fuzzy concept there, however) that seem universal regardless of societal structure (comes a little out of the blue, after spending half an hour on how environment and genetics interweave for a lot of human behavior, but it's not wrong, just felt a little oddly timed). 47 - Some decent criticisms of money as a unit of economics, although no alternative is given thus far... reads a bit too much into an Adam Smith quote as somewhat anticipating evolution, when as far as I know even the quoted bit of Smith is factually incorrect (states that the poor have fewer children because they cannot support them, when, as far as I know, the poor actually tend to have more children - don't know if this was the case in Smith's time). Also ties religion into Smith's economic theories more than I'm aware that it should be... I'm not terribly familiar with Smith's work, but he seems to be reading what he thinks is between the lines rather than what is actually written in the quotes he's using ("invisible hand" isn't an explicitly religious metaphor, and using modern US currency that has "In God We Trust" on it - which began in the 1860s, long after Smith's death - as a background is misleading). 50 minutes in - Can't continue watching right now... bit too intoxicated for preachy movies. Ending it on a good note of fairly legitimate criticism of money being treated as a commodity in itself, and the accumulation of money being an end rather than a means to an end. However... I must confess fears that this is going to do something that I see all too regularly: criticize money as a unit of economic activity without giving another plausible option for modern societies to switch to. It does us very little good to say that money is bad when it's also the only thing that allows modern forms of complex economic interaction. Hopefully it won't go this route... maybe I'll continue watching another night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 He who preaches with the Sword of Truth at his right and the Book of Righteousness at his left with the Heart of Humanity beating blood through his veins and Science of Man on his mind, it is He who will dare blaze a path through the muddy visions of the world. Are you ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mmm Coffee Posted January 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Pali, definitely finish the movie when you can. The first 90 mins or so build up to the last hour in which comes the plausible solution (which is essentially the Venus Project) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0xx Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 States that the poor have fewer children because they cannot support them, when, as far as I know, the poor actually tend to have more children - don't know if this was the case in Smith's time Haven't watched the movie yet, but in my country, the poor DO have more children. There is actually another connection here, and it is that the less educated (stupid) have more children than the more educated (smarter). Obviously, the less educated more often than not end up as poor. Also, we humans have removed the process of natural selection. There is a good movie called "Idiocracy" that humorously expands this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mmm Coffee Posted January 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 I believe what he is saying is, during Adam Smith's time, it was Smith's ideology that the poor (who he associates with being too lazy to work) will die off because they won't be able to support excess children. This was before the days of government handouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Also' date=' we humans have removed the process of natural selection.[/quote'] No, we haven't. It's just selecting in favor of less intelligence currently. And we've already had an Idiocracy discussion. I don't know if Smith associates the poor with being too lazy to work or not... like I said, I'm not that familiar with his work. I do, however, think that the bits of his work quoted thus far are being treated as saying things they do not (again, "invisible hand" doesn't necessarily have any religious connotation, but the person interviewed about the subject treats it as if it does). I get that they're trying to argue that the pursuit of money has a sort of religious fervor to it, but this can be argued more directly and without misleading interpretations of Smith or other economists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demiterracotta Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Pali, Pali, Pali. Arguing things while using the facts in a non-biased light would make people actually have to THINK and DECIDE for themselves on some things, as opposed to being told that it is absolute truth and they have no choice about believing it. Geez man, you have way too much faith in humanity. You're still the greatest Spok ever though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 Geez man' date=' you have way too much faith in humanity. [/quote'] Trust me - I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 Part 2 - Good criticisms of the market and money systems of economics. Feels like its taking too long to get where its going, but that's just nitpicking. Part 3 - Very powerful argument in favor of the resource-based economy... however, as of the 2-hour mark, I have serious reservations about a number of its core concepts (I'm completely ignoring here that it will never happen, also - more on that later). It makes very liberal use of words that don't have well-established definitions, such as "well-being", and treats them as if these can be turned into numbers that the computer systems at the base of all resource-centered judgments will be able to crunch. Well-being is not a term that has this kind of concrete definition attached to it - it's highly subjective, and while we can come to a consensus on broad parameters for it, it'll always be fuzzy at the edges. The movie glosses over how every person's resource needs could be calculated, and with good reason - I'm not convinced this is something that could ever be simplified to the point of a mathematical calculation. Would each person get a number of resource points they could use every day/month/year/etc. on whatever they want, or would the computer be determining what is the optimal resource to give you at this time? If the former, you reintroduce human error into the system, because people will spend those resources on inefficient choices (unless choice has become so limited as to be an obsolete term), and the entire point of the system is fairly moot. If the latter, how could that determination possibly be made, given all the variables involved when considering individuals? Is giving me a computer a better use of my personal resources than giving me a bike? What's the calculation there? How are the weights assigned to those variables? 2:12 - I like the idea of treating violence as a health issue rather than a moral issue, and the point that people are heavily influenced by culture (in a "he wasn't racist - he was brought up to be racist" way) is well made. Part 4 2:18 - This guy's overstating his case regarding how often "freedom" translates to "market freedom" in political discourse. I agree that it happens often - but battles over freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom from many other types of repression (the Drug War and anti-gay discrimination come quickly to mind, as do racial and sexual discrimination) are still happening all over the place in the Western world. 2:30 - There's been a lot of good talk about serious problems that the world is going to be facing in the near future that don't get talked about nearly enough - food/water shortages being a huge one. There's the expectation, one I've long shared, that these problems will eventually lead to, as the movie calls it, "civil unrest". Personally, I'm expecting some big wars in the next few decades, some civil, some international. Ends well, with an uplifting vision of people peacefully overthrowing the monetary system world-wide... but I can't say I'm happy with them not just using Yes's original version of "I've Seen All Good People" - way better than the one they went with. In the end, honestly, the biggest flaw that the movie has in my opinion is that I think it's vision simply will not happen - not only that, but that it cannot happen, that it is against human nature FOR it to happen (at least for us to transition there from our current state in anything resembling a peaceful manner). The movie ignores a number of significant roadblocks along the way, the major one being that human beings are not, for the most part, rational creatures. The movie Men In Black was spot on with the line "a person is smart; people are dumb, panicky animals..." Ignoring the entrenched and very powerful economic interests that this is going up against, there are religious and political ideologies around the world that the people en masse hold to. The movie says that people will dismiss ideas like this out of hand for being utopian. Well... yes, they will, and they're right for thinking it's utopian because it is - it's an idea to save the world. And despite my reservations, its also a pretty good one. But it simply won't get through basic human stubbornness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mmm Coffee Posted January 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 Forget for a minute that we've been raised in a culture of fear since the time of pharaohs (pharaoh = elitist who thinks he's part god = caesars = popes = many forms of so-called leaders) and that all we know about our current society is based on the environment we have allowed ourselves to "prosper" in. You also have to be able to see the world from other perspectives. Naturally, if you are young and haven't had much opportunity to travel and immerse yourself in other cultures, this is difficult to do. THIS is the plague of many Americans I know. Generally speaking, we are so narrow-minded because we are ignorant of the plight of other cultures/people. Just look at the media, this is happening right now! Look at Greece, look at what's happening in Egypt/Tunisia/Jordan this very instant. Do some research on Haiti...social breakdown due to corrupt government practices of passing laws that favor the highest bidder. And what did our supreme court pass just over a year ago? Citizens United vs. FEC This is happening at a world level and will hit our country sooner or later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mali Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 (in a "he wasn't racist - he was brought up to be racist" way) is well made. Total BS, Pali. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 Total BS' date=' Pali.[/quote'] Only BS if it's being used in an attempt to excuse the behavior rather than an attempt to explain it. People absorb most of their values from the surrounding culture, and social pressures drive people to do all sorts of things they wouldn't otherwise do. It's not like everyone wearing a Nazi uniform was an evil person deep down. Just look at the media, this is happening right now! Look at Greece, look at what's happening in Egypt/Tunisia/Jordan this very instant. Do some research on Haiti...social breakdown due to corrupt government practices of passing laws that favor the highest bidder. And what did our supreme court pass just over a year ago? Citizens United vs. FEC This is happening at a world level and will hit our country sooner or later. THIS is not happening right now - civil unrest is happening right now. Civil unrest because of unhappiness with the government happens pretty regularly throughout the world - that's a far cry from a mass civil movement pushing us away from money as a unit of economics. It's not like it is the same thing happening in each of those countries - the circumstances are unique to them. It's not just that people have to be unhappy with the current system - it's that they'd need to be convinced pretty much universally that this is the way to go about creating a better system, and many people simply wouldn't bother listening - they're too busy looking to their next leader, or to the masses, or to their holy book for that better system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.