It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TrueTruth
reply to post by dalan.
I admire your commitment to your beliefs and ideals.
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
reply to post by someguy420
Something tells me that ZM people aren't very well trained in concepts like logistics. And I wish we could get more detail in functionality. Tossing cutsie ideas about a dream world around doesnt mean it will actually function. I'm not even sure what you mean by "we can all shape the world how we all want". You make it sound like the world will be a gigantic video game and we all have a controller. In practice, we'd all be jacked into the thing and it'd be controlling us like non-player characters who all think we're actual characters, as I've been warning about the future of the NWO for years.
I've listed ways and examples of it being communism, please explain how some of these arent. There's lots of material for you to pick from in this thread.
[edit on 29-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by dalan.
Excellent points on rights of property and our Constitution. It seems this Zeitgeist thing is just another mask on the face of Marxism. Marx himself wrote in the Communist Manifesto that the ultimate goal of Marxism is the abolition of private (bourgeois) property. This is really the heart of the matter. All this Utopian discussion is really about control of the world's resources. Communists hate the bourgeois Capitalists because they amass so much wealth and control the resources, so they try to create a society where no one has private property and everything is divvied up equitably. Unfortunately in a system like that, no one will want to work hard for anything because their needs would (supposedly) be met. This is why Communism fails.
3. AGI (‘Skynet’) Supercomuters controlling most aspects of politics and society, including rationing global resources to global citizens. If they actually thought this out they'd know that soon enough machines will need more resources than humans.
6. Cashless (non-backed by Gold/etc) economic system. A ‘Resource Economy’ has been tried before… in the Soviet Union.
7. Population Control. To meet these targets as policy sounds like a slippery slope to me.
8. The global government run by a global 'god-on-earth' AGI computer network
And that’s what I’ve gathered just glancing over it.
It’s already a worshipful, Cult-Of-Personality movement.
Another interesting thing is that he claims that all humans can be re-educated to make them uncompetitive.
Originally posted by petrus4
a] Yes, TVP is transhumanist. In his book, Jacque actually calls machines the next phase of human evolution. I'm not sure I agree, but it doesn't have me reaching for a shotgun, either. I happen to like computers, personally.
b] There is no inherent relationship that I am aware of, between transhumanism and selfishness.
Automated labour is a wonderful idea.
Stop and think for a minute; you can either manually chop wood, cook, or build houses yourself, or you can sit on the lawn behind your house, and smoke bowls with your friends, while robots do it for you.
Skynet wasn't strong AI. It was weak; very smart weak, but (broken) weak nonetheless. It ultimately couldn't adapt to John Connor's guerilla tactics, and it couldn't bring itself to stop mindlessly killing things, because that was what it was programmed to do.
TVP is Utopian; but again, you say Utopian like it's a bad thing.
TVP presupposes abundance.
Originally posted by gandhi
Your right, lets go backwards and try to live!
Originally posted by Professor Tomorrow
David Bentley Hart wrote not too long ago that "postmodernism is the triumph of rhetoric over dialectic;" the ZM is precisely typical of the postmodern way-of-thinking.
What is important, in a culture primed by the messy (but exciting!) philosophy of G. E. Moore's Prinicipia Ethica is the emotive content of any given argument. Consider, ZM is for:
-only good things ever.
-the best things human beings are capable of doing.
...and ZM is against:
-all the bad things that happen to people.
-the worst things human beings are capable of doing.
When queried about the nature of their strategy, ZM supporters seem to think that:
-a totally equitable and scientific scheme to distribute the resources of the planet
-and super high-tech robots
...will solve the twin evils of "all the bad things that happen to people" and "the worst things humans are capable of."