I haven't seen the movie but from what I've garnished from this discussion, I like the ideals.

I also agree that technology will very soon take away the need to work for economical reasons.

But there will always be a spiritual need to work but it doesn't have to be 8 hours a day. It just has to fulfil that need that we all have to contribute.
Everyone would and could work an hour a day, even if for no reason but to reap the inner and spiritual rewards of pulling their wieght.

Communism is a fascist government, very large and intrusive government, and is a relatively modern concept. Applying terms like these to First Nations People is incorrect and misleading. Communal, or cooperative societies are the feminine energies of ying and yang. Next you'll be saying women are communists. Well between capitalism, fascism and a moneyless, cooperative resource society, I know which one will save the human race, and the only one that is worth bringing a child into. All the others are child abuse.

Originally posted by mystiq
Communism is a fascist government, very large and intrusive government, and is a relatively modern concept. Applying terms like these to First Nations People is incorrect and misleading. Communal, or cooperative societies are the feminine energies of ying and yang. Next you'll be saying women are communists. Well between capitalism, fascism and a moneyless, cooperative resource society, I know which one will save the human race, and the only one that is worth bringing a child into. All the others are child abuse.

Why is it that you never actually reply to the things being said, you just keep on going and going about how great it is?

Do you understand that you can't have a money less society as long as things have value?

Do you understand that as long as a resource is limited, it will have a value?

Do you understand that you are in effect, wishing to give government everything of value when you let them handle resources?

The day we can conjure up matter with our minds, then you can have a money less society. Because then resources will not be limited. Until then, everything will always have value. And as long as things have value, then you have a form of money. A resource based system is still a money based system. Otherwise you wouldn't need a system.

But you just outright refuse to acknowledge these things. How in the world are we supposed to have an intelligent discussion when simple principles like I've pointed out above are not even recognized in the discussion?

There is one potential way to create a government based on a "communist" approach where the leadership that would determine a fair and truly balanced system of resource disbursement based on available resources and the leadership would be completely immune to normal behaviors associated with corruption and elitism.

Problem is, most people would never accept it.

I hesitate to even suggest it because of the way people would react

I won't get into specifics, and I'll say that we definitely wouldn't want this system to be involved in every aspect of the society, you'd only want it involved in resource distribution and it would required a detailed knowledge of available resources.

But a properly created software solution could carry out much of that without fear of corruption. Unfortunately, it would always be questionable because you'd have to ensure no one could ever tamper with the code.

I'm just throwing it out there for nothing more than a thought experiment.

[edit on 10-10-2008 by SimpleAnswers]

Originally posted by mystiq
Communism is a fascist government, very large and intrusive government, and is a relatively modern concept. Applying terms like these to First Nations People is incorrect and misleading. Communal, or cooperative societies are the feminine energies of ying and yang. Next you'll be saying women are communists. Well between capitalism, fascism and a moneyless, cooperative resource society, I know which one will save the human race, and the only one that is worth bringing a child into. All the others are child abuse.

Lol, the feminine energies of ying and yang? Do you mean Yin and Yang? By the way, only one is feminine. The other is masculine. They balance each other, yadda yadda. And yes, I know, before you go on and attack me for correcting you, there is a little bit of opposite energy in both of these. I know AAAALLLLL about it.

Any and all points you make are now moot to me, because you just tried to say ... that because someone disagreed with your ideas that next they'll be trying to equate women to communists because... why, again? "Cooperative societies are the feminine energies of ying and yang"... ?

...

[edit on 10-10-2008 by cetta]

the only thing i found stupid about the venus thingy, you listen to him spout off about money being bad and wouldnt it be nice to give somebody a painting instead of them buying it, look at the web site shop, they want donations, you can buy autographed prints, videos and it kind of deflated me a bit, seems like a bit of double standards if you ask me,

I'd like to make a quick introduction, this being my first response to an ATS forum. I'm from California, USA. Have lived here my whole life. I've lived in Southern Ca, Central Valley Ca, and Coastal Ca, where I currently reside. My thoughts and beliefs are based primarily on the experiences I've had living here, as well as traveling to other states and Mexico. I have had the great misfortune of being unable to view the world from the perspective of another country, and have only recently begun searching for news sources outside the continental US for a more objective viewpoint. I was raised in a lower-class single-parent family and have been lucky enough to develop, what I call, great moral values, which I hope to prove to you all, and perhaps even have altered, by viewpoints more informed than my own. My family was non-theist, and I have spent random bouts declaring my self atheist, agnostic, and the second-coming. Currently, I'm non-theist, but working on a belief system that integrates scientific fact with a possible hypothesis, which I would go into greater detail privately. I appreciate almost every viewpoint I have encountered, assimilated useful tidbits of information, and attempted to pass on what many would call 'wisdom,' but that definition is purely subjective. I look forward to interacting with you all, and hope that in the end, whether agreeing or disagreeing, we can be tolerant, understanding and respectful of the other's position. I have a BA in sociology.

In regards to ZG:A, I think the point was to present one of many possible alternatives to the current system. There are a few assumptions that must be considered true (and always arguable) regardless of how any implemented system comes to fruition:

1. Society has always come into contact with other societies and attempted to integrate the others into a respectable institution, defined as ally/ enemy/ conquered state. Thus, society is inexorably drifting towards a global community. How that community is going to be defined may largely be influenced by the choices we (that is myself, and you the reader) initiate that change.

2. As science continues to replace 'belief' with 'fact' (not 'truth'), Religion will continue to decline on behalf of those who wish to obtain knowledge. For instance: Knowledge of multiple pre-existing belief systems exhibited similar morals and tales that is gained using the methods of archaeology, sociology, and psychology in conference with theological history as presented in ZG has led many to question both the authority of Christianity and the scholarship of the scientific evidence.

3. The previous assumptions assume that no major cataclysmic event will impede the current development of either's trends, such as asteroid collision, solar flare interference, or global nuclear warfare.

My conclusion is this: Eventually, logic and reason will overcome irrationality. This trend will then establish an 'in-group' and an 'out-group.' The in-group will support the proliferation of logic and reason to the global community, while the out-group will understandable question it's authority. Logic and reason will make a convincing argument, drawing support from the out-group, while the in-group allows for 'civil dissent' of its own. Human Psychology regarding the mob-mentality suggest that the remainders of the out-group will assimilate themselves into the in-group, and through the course of 2 generations, Logic and Reason will become the driving force of the new society. Understanding and tolerance will be pivotal, and allowance of questionable tactics or 'logical parodoxes' will also be required to perpetuate a tolerant society.

This is not to accuse Believers of being irrational, only that unquestioned belief in an unsubstantiated claim produced by a secularly unverifiable source is unreasonable. To 'take a leap of faith' is to commit risk with oneself, and others. Surely the last 3000 years of bloodshed in the name of (diety) reflect that.

1. Who gets to decide how many resources each individual gets?
2. Who gets to decide how to "manage" the resources "properly"?
3. What do you do with the people who do not go along with it.

1, 2: Are you presupposing that the 'who' you reference will be in total control, regardless of the spectrum of human ethic from which that 'who' derives, and will thusly act malevolently to the controlled?

3. You are assuming that there will be people who do not go along with it. In a society in which the entire culture has been brought up to pursue knowledge, and regard the potential of the individual in association with contributions to mankind, it is conceivable that such dissent may not exist. If I were to offer a possible solution to your question, I would support the people's opinion inasmuch as their intent to act stayed within the bounds of respect and responsibility. As soon as an action caused intentional harm of any kind to anyone, it would be addressed accordingly, in proportion to the offense committed. You are correct in noting that the Venus project declines to comment on this topic, and that is a reasonable concern.

Money is merely a symbol of value. The real value behind money is in the value of the resources. That is the ONLY thing of value - which will be controlled. And this is different from today how?

Regarding things of value, there are things today that many would consider 'lavish' or 'unnecessary' or 'extravagant.' Regardless of what those things of value are, they may one day be wholly considered 'unproductive' or otherwise lacking the potential to further contribute value to Human pursuits, assumably advancement of the race, betterment of mankind, and increasing the whole of human knowledge.
I submit that it is a flaw in your argument that, in order for nothing to have value, infinite resources are required. Value can be maintained, but the objects upon which we place it should be changed from the material to the fraternal. If a population valued its people over the notions of personal gain, then this quandary is thusly avoided.

It is interesting that you note the lack of a proper solution in the film, yet fail to present one of your own. One might assume that, being a part of this forum, you would be just as concerned about the human condition as any other poster in this forum. Have you not any solutions to offer in the name of making a more egalitarian society?

I also believe it is assumed too frequently that this 'Utopia' is bereft of violence and punishment. In my opinion, a culture in which the value of others is placed over the value of self or the material, it will be standard of ethic and etiquette not to pursue harmful intent upon another individual. For those that 'undoubtably' violate the status quo, the people would elicit shame and humiliation upon the transgressor by noting the action frequently in civil conversation with said person. Should the transgression happen more than once, a series of mediation might be pursued in which the transgressor is examined for remedial traits. If the transgression is deemed 'unhealthy' by the populace, then, in accordance with the needs of the many overwhelming the needs of the few, the transgressor might be exiled or put to death. In either case it should be a moment of great mourning for the people, as one of their own has been proven unable to further contribute to the pursuits of society, whatever they may be.

(to be continued)

It's just more status quo. It's like these people expect these kinds of things to be presented as bad. Of course it's going to be pushed as being better/for the good. But anyone who examines it beyond the image can see exactly what is going on.

I believe the point of making information accessible, and not editting its content, will avail the people of the proposed future the ability to decide and judge for themselves the validity of any presentations. This unedited accessibility, combined with the cultural practice of valuing the whole over the few, will also make whatever leadership that might exist unable to propagandize.

Did you notice how you viewed your way of things as rational, and those which did not go in, as being irrational?

No I didn't. I carefully chose my words simplistically in a method I describe below.

Did you notice how you grouped everyone in this world of diversity into 2 groups, or duality?

Yes, for the sake of simplicity, I chose the 2 averages from 2 bell curves. One demonstrated actions that would be considered positive in society, the other negative. I then compared the frequency with which positive and negative events occur as reported by behaviors that elicit rewards and punishments. I arbitrarily labeled the positive average "rational behavior" and the negative average "irrational behavior." For the most part, positive behavior occurs in the realm of rational thought, whereas negative behavior occurs in irrational thought. See the work of Bandura for more.

Did you realize there is more than 1 way of seeing the bible, and that you will view it as the worse case scenario and present it as such, to further you own personal agenda?

I find it interesting that you assumed I was attacking the Bible, even though I qualified my one reference to Christianity as being presented by ZG. If ZG wanted to expand its scope to refute all faiths, then IMO, it should have included precise references to Muhammad, Allah, and Yahweh. As for knowing there is more than one way to see the Bible, ZG:A did point out the various denominations of Christianity, which suggests that they exist precisely because of different ways of seeing the Bible. I view it as "the worst case scenario" (very vague, BTW) because it is credible evidence to me that, by the alterations that have historically occurred to specifically the Bible over time, and the aforementioned various genealogies of belief stemming from the primary belief system, that none of the current versions has perfected the system, and that they each claim that believers of the other systems are not 'saved' speaks volumes of their own intolerance.

Is it possible, that what you lined out is simply majority thinks/believes is right and the only right? And tell me, how is that different than when the majority were christians and made people go along with that?

I'm not forcing anyone to go along with my beliefs. I'm placing them out there to be argued back, so that I might acheive more convincing arguments. Thesis+Antithesis=Synthesis, which becomes the new thesis until the introduction of yet another antithesis, ad infinitum. See Marx for more.

Does it occur to you that it's not so much what you force people to do, but the act of forcing people that is wrong?

If someone attempted to kill you, would you not attempt to force them not to? I argue that forcing someone to accept the notion of not harming someone is not forcing at all, but attempting to communicate reason. It would also seem that you are attempting to 'force' me to believe your above-stated claim, thus, if accurate, negating the effectiveness of your own argument.

(to be continued)

You say they will question the authority. Don't you think that would consist of taking authority as truth, rather than truth as authority. And if so, then how does that make you different than whats going on today, and what makes you different?

Because in my imagination, the truth IS the authority, and the dissenters are those who, for whatever reason, refuse to accept it. If Truth is the authority, what would you call those that refuse to accept the truth?

On a side note, why are the questions I've asked many times always ignored by the people who support this stuff? Does the truth really hurt that bad? Are you guys frustrated because you can see the problem, but can't see a solution that doesn't involve controlling and forcing your will on others? Is it really that hard to live and let live? Is 1 life not enough to have control over?

I have only noticed your stated questions once, and have proceeded to answer them to the best of understanding. I have read every post you have made on this specific thread and attempted to understand your point of view. I have mentioned before that your lack of offering a solution is apparent, and accusing others of their lack of solutions only includes yourself among their numbers. In my belief, it is possible to allow a Utopian society to exist, ruled by self-government, something that so many people I have debated has said is not possible, but that is because they were brought up by the very establishment which seeks to convince us that we cannot. Living and letting live would be a victorious middle ground if those that wrest control of us would relinquish that control. I apologize if I inferred that I wish to have control over others. As appealing as the concept is, I have the capacity to override that desire in favor of the concept I have attempted to promote: The value of the whole over it's parts.

Now, if you could answer a question for me, badmedia: Why is that your posts to this thread seem so angry, posed in such a way that comes off at best biting and at worst spiteful. Is not the purpose of this thread to engage in discussion and amicable debate to determine the course of pursuit for our brethren? You offer many questions and raise interesting points in the arguments of others, and for this you do a critical service for those of us pursuing a critical thought process. But you do not seem to empathize or sympathize with the majority of posters who, like I, seek the establishment of a comparable Utopia, and believe it to be possible. It has been said that belief has made our current civilization possible, so why not the belief of an egalitarian civilization to lay the foundation for the future?

P.S. To the poster that suggested that the position of 'a state is not to promote the ideals, but that the ideals promote the state' was superb.