Zeitgeist Movement = most hardcore NWO propaganda ever.

i dont think it matters either way we are still "slaves" of the nwo

Science is what is messing up this world. Just look at the Global Warming Cult and the hacked e-mail to the integrity of.... of what? Personal Gain. Political Power. And now in the name of science, the Venus Project will save humanity. The Venus Project reminds me of the movie "Demolition Man."

The Venus Project is NWO propaganda, along with many others, are disinformation agent for the global cabals. Another clever one is M.T. He and the VP have common agendas like Theosophy.

So yeah, I agree with the OP! the ZM is propaganda like the MSM. The NWO know this so the send out agents like the VP, AJ, MT to create more chaos out of order. The mis-information is the one method of the NWO to get you into the VP and Theosophy.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

 

I could not agree with you more.

Thank you!

It's rehashed Marxism. I spent enough time on the ZM boards to understand that it anti-democratic. It wants scientists to form an elite who decides what we can have. And this notion of robots doing all our jobs for us so we can write poetry and play lutes all day is just silly.

Write poetry and play lutes? Sure, if you wanted to, but don't you have any hobbies now that you spend time enjoying? What about more time with friends and family? What about more time to enjoy your connections with other humans, relationships?

What about more time to study psychology, history, philosophy, engineering, architecture, sociology, software development, hardware development, space exploration, food production, science, evolution, astronomy, physics, etc?

That doesn't sound like sitting around playing aflute to me, that sounds like human beings endowed with more time to actually grow, instead wasting their time drudging away at some 9-5...

Marxism? Sounds to me like someone does not understand the concept of Marxism...

Remember that time period in human history...you know the Industrial Revolution? When the class split between laborers/workers and owners/production managers was horribly visible?

Yeah, so Karl Marx was commenting on how the Proletariat (workers) needed to rise up against the Bourgeoisie (owners). That if the working class united they could take more power from the owners.

But they would still be working?

And it would still work within some kind of a political base?

And monetary value would still be the driving force of society...

Plus not to mention that with Marxism, education is reduced to what a person needs to learn to add to the "machine." As opposed to education in everything possible....

So yeah, The Venus Project and Zeitgeist Movements are Marxism.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
reply to post by Scarcer

 

The very idea that they believe human beings will magically cease all violence towards one another all because of this mythical - and scientifically unsupported- notion of abundance through robots, demonstrates how little they know about the science of behavior.

Scarcity doesn't even appear as a concept in the literature of Behaviorism. Other things are much stronger motivators, such as, attention. Status. Etc.

For people who claim to champion science, they are remarkably stingy with their data, and ill informed on the subjects they preach on.

That is an assumption.

Violence would not disappear, it would simply be studied to find out the root cause instead of ignoring it, and accepting it as "fact" like we do now.

reply to post by dalan.


Hi dalan. First, let's establish common ground. We both want to see the worls a better place. We both want to see the have-nots, have. We both believe that our resources could be more efficiently and fairly managed. We both understand that the present political order is tilted unfairly towards said haves.

Where we differ, is on the idea about how to change it. I'll first respond to this:

"You don't want your nature to change, so you do not want to grow? Our only "nature" is growth and change."

I'd rephrase it a little: the thing that characterizes the human animal is adaptability. Our ancestors had to deal with rapidly (relatively) changing climates back in Africa, and hence were shaped, via selection, to put a premium on mental acuity, over the physical. Different organisms use different features to get by. I do not, however, believe that we are 'growing' per say. That injects an element of teleology that I do not think exists, either in humans, or any other species. Insofar as we are all here, all species may be said to be equally 'grown'. If longevity means anything, the cockroach is more 'evolved' than the human. Though again, this is a logically void statement, based on the unsupportable proposition of goal directed development. There is no evidence for this in nature - we only perceive it as such based on the perception of ourselves as superior, which of course, is purely subjective, and not factual.


""Social engineering" simply means that if you grow up in a profit structure that engineers scarcity you are more likely to be socialized towards greed."

I believe there must be a balance struck between an individual's desire to succeed personally, and a need to look out for one another, and see to it that nobody is left out in the cold. There is much more than greed to explain anti-social behavior, and much more to anti-social behavior, than greed. In the literature of Behaviorism, 'scarcity' as it's used by the ZM, really does not exist. A much stronger factor, so the research has shown, is attention - that is, social rewards, not material. One wonders if better attention to how we simply treat one another, positively reward desirable traits, etc, might to some degree obviate the issue of greed. It is observed by many, such as in the famous statement by Kissenger, that "power is the ultimate aphrodesiac". Much as rape is not so much about sex as power, so be it with resource hoarding (rich guys wanting it all). It's about status more than stuff, and the true science supports this hypothesis. It bothers me that the ZM ignores the true science, and instead uses its own untested ideas.

"Computers can only calculate probabilities, they cannot force anyone to do anything. That requires sentience, something that they do not have."

I don't want decisions about human beings being determined by machines. They have no capacity for things like compassion, intuition, or value judgement. And the literature of Technocracy is unambiguous in its call for an elite - scientists - to be in charge of the basic apparatus of distribution. And as I learned speaking to several members of said movement on the ZM boards, this is completely correct. They make no bones about it. This is an anti-democratic idea, and on that basis, I view it as immoral. Further, how can you at once believe that human can 'grow', and at the same time, believe that we are so incapable of fairness that we need computers to do what essentially amounts to long division? And what about resources that are finite? We can't all have premium real estate, or the most attractive mates. There will always be inequity to some extent - and of course, as I said before, the hunger for status.

Lastly, I have seen zero hard data to support any of these ideas - ie, scarcity, resource abundance, or machines doing all these jobs.

peace.



[edit on 28-11-2009 by TrueTruth]

Originally posted by dalan.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
reply to post by Scarcer

 

The very idea that they believe human beings will magically cease all violence towards one another all because of this mythical - and scientifically unsupported- notion of abundance through robots, demonstrates how little they know about the science of behavior.

Scarcity doesn't even appear as a concept in the literature of Behaviorism. Other things are much stronger motivators, such as, attention. Status. Etc.

For people who claim to champion science, they are remarkably stingy with their data, and ill informed on the subjects they preach on.

That is an assumption.

Violence would not disappear, it would simply be studied to find out the root cause instead of ignoring it, and accepting it as "fact" like we do now.

Which part is an assumption?

It is not assumption but fact that the VP's ideas about scarcity as a prime mover of human behavior is unsupported by science, or that the true science of it, Behaviorism, considers social reinforcers to be a much stronger determinant of behavior. Until I see data to the contrary, I will have to consider this junk science.

It is also not an assumption that they have produced no hard numbers on their ideas of scarcity. I tried to contact JF personally more than once, and he didn't so much as respond to me. Nobody who calls themselves a scientist should be operating without data, or be unwilling to let others attempt to in/validate it. That process is the essence of science itself, and he is flouting it, instead asking people to fund him based on faith alone.

Please tell me - what here is the assumption?

[edit on 28-11-2009 by TrueTruth]

Originally posted by whereismyfather
Science is what is messing up this world. Just look at the Global Warming Cult and the hacked e-mail to the integrity of.... of what? Personal Gain. Political Power. And now in the name of science, the Venus Project will save humanity. The Venus Project reminds me of the movie "Demolition Man."

Actually that would be lack of education that is destroying us.

Proliferating ignorance is what causes people to be culled into an idea like global warming.

Better education means less ignorance, means more scientific minds, means we have the consensus necessary to find out if glbal warming is fact or fictitious.

Science is messing up the world?

Sure, tell that to cancer survivors.

Say that again when you get in your car because its more convenient than walking.

The next time you get an infection don't take an antibiotic, science discovered it and it benefited your life.

Ignorance is the destructive force behind society.

Originally posted by dalan.
The zeitgeist movement is not NWO order propaganda, in fact it is quite the opposite.

The zeitgeist movement is not about "doing nothing."

The NWO suppresses technology, they would not want a group of people who could sustain themselves with no need for any kind of a middle-man. The NWO would not want technically proficient humans, because then they would be geared with the means to actually solving problems.

The zeitgeist movement is not about "being lazy and getting smoething because Mommy and Daddy gave it to us," that already happens in our culture now. The Venus Project simply presents a new direction for us to take, a direction where we realize that we are either going to work together, or destroy ourselves.

How is it "laziness?" I am putting myself through college studying software development to WORK towards being able to help others in a positive way..

The NWO wants a world united by military force/police, cameras, laws, poverty, scarcity....the exact opposite of everything presented by the Venus Project.

This post is simply biased and based in assumption and fear.

"The zeitgeist movement is lazy people waiting for handouts..." that is the most ridiculous statement that I have ever read regarding the movement, it is clear that someone did not pay attention to the direction presented. Engineering, computer programming, psychology, sociology, architecture, design...these are not lazy means to an end, the are they most proficient.

This is why mankind cannot get anything done, people find a new direction to take and its flamed by people who are scared of it.

By the way, no one with the movement ever called for a "global government," just the realization that the mental borders that separate us are illusions, and they create the "us vs. them" mentality that is so easy to manipulate and cause war. We are all human and Earth is our home, no one in the movement is painting anyone as an "enemy combatant" or "terrorist," THAT IS NWO PROPAGANDA....

If you want to know if something is NWO propaganda just listen to see if they are trying to sell the idea that some "group" is a common threat of everyone. If fear is the uniting tactic then it probably is NWO based, but the zeitgeist movement is anything but a fear-based movement. It is the most hopeful approach that we have.

[edit on 11/28/2009 by dalan.]

[edit on 11/28/2009 by dalan.]

Couldn't have said it better myself dalan! I completely agree with you. The creator of this thread definitely misinterpreted Zeitgeist or just has some unjustified fears about losing his wealth. Personally I would love to have a resource based economy. Not even an economy, a global sharing of everyones goods. Call me un-American if you want, but I can't stand the corruption that plagues the economy. The corruption will take everything you have, kick you out of your house, take your car. PUT YOU ON THE STREET PEOPLE... Argh now I'm angry! Better go do some slave labor to numb my mind from the inequalities of this so called "Fair and Just" system we live in............

Peace & Love
Omni

Actually that would be lack of education that is destroying us.

Now that, is an assumption. It's an untestable and certainly unproven belief. I'm all for education, but many highly educated people are also greedy and immoral - ie, to reuse a name - men like Kissenger.

Proliferating ignorance is what causes people to be culled into an idea like global warming.

Or, it might just be that science sometimes leads us to erroneous conclusions, or that, as we recently learned via those hacked emails - people are purposely fudging the data...why again? To establish their grip on power - a social phenomenon.




[edit on 28-11-2009 by TrueTruth]

Originally posted by TrueTruth
reply to post by dalan.

 

Hi dalan. First, let's establish common ground. We both want to see the worlds a better place. We both want to see the have-nots, have. We both believe that our resources could be more efficiently and fairly managed. We both understand that the present political order is tilted unfairly towards said haves.

This would be our common ground.

Where we differ, is on the idea about how to change it. I'll first respond to this:

"You don't want your nature to change, so you do not want to grow? Our only "nature" is growth and change."

I'd rephrase it a little: the thing that characterizes the human animal is adaptability. Our ancestors had to deal with rapidly (relatively) changing climates back in Africa, and hence were shaped, via selection, to put a premium on mental acuity, over the physical. Different organisms use different features to get by. I do not, however, believe that we are 'growing' per say. That injects an element of teleology that I do not think exists, either in humans, or any other species. Insofar as we are all here, all species may be said to be equally 'grown'. If longevity means anything, the cockroach is more 'evolved' than the human. Though again, this is a logically void statement, based on the unsupportable proposition of goal directed development. There is no evidence for this in nature - we only perceive it as such based on the perception of ourselves as superior, which of course, is purely subjective, and not factual.

Social interaction. Changing climate. Adapting to circumstance, these are mechanisms for change that I was relating to. When someone comes to a new conclusion, that conclusion is re-enforced by the growth of new synapse connections in the brain. That is growth. `Learning, experience, these are apart of our evolution.


""Social engineering" simply means that if you grow up in a profit structure that engineers scarcity you are more likely to be socialized towards greed."

I believe there must be a balance struck between an individual's desire to succeed personally, and a need to look out for one another, and see to it that nobody is left out in the cold. There is much more than greed to explain anti-social behavior, and much more to anti-social behavior, than greed. In the literature of Behaviorism, 'scarcity' as it's used by the ZM, really does not exist. A much stronger factor, so the research has shown, is attention - that is, social rewards, not material. One wonders if better attention to how we simply treat one another, positively reward desirable traits, etc, might to some degree obviate the issue of greed. It is observed by many, such as in the famous statement by Kissenger, that "power is the ultimate aphrodesiac". Much as rape is not so much about sex as power, so be it with resource hoarding (rich guys wanting it all). It's about status more than stuff, and the true science supports this hypothesis. It bothers me that the ZM ignores the true science, and instead uses its own untested ideas.

How much are we socialized for the lust for power, status and greed though? it is an integral part of our culture...

What about indigenous tribes through out the world that had no concept of greed or power? Many native American tribes shared resources, and technological developments among the society, because if they did not work together they would not survive.

"Computers can only calculate probabilities, they cannot force anyone to do anything. That requires sentience, something that they do not have."

I don't want decisions about human beings being determined by machines. They have no capacity for things like compassion, intuition, or value judgment. And the literature of Technocracy is unambiguous in its call for an elite - scientists - to be in charge of the basic apparatus of distribution. And as I learned speaking to several members of said movement on the ZM boards, this is completely correct. They make no bones about it. This is an anti-democratic idea, and on that basis, I view it as immoral. Further, how can you at once believe that human can 'grow', and at the same time, believe that we are so incapable of fairness that we need computers to do what essentially amounts to long division? And what about resources that are finite? We can't all have premium real estate, or the most attractive mates. There will always be inequity to some extent - and of course, as I said before, the hunger for status.

Machines already make decisions for us, Doppler radar can make scans for pilots so that they know how high they are flying instead of trying to eye it themselves. Managing resources means using the most efficient methods to, say, build someone a home. Aesthetics are secondayr to making sure tha everyone has a home and no one has to spend a night in thcold laying in the dirty, city street.

Lastly, I have seen zero hard data to support any of these ideas - ie, scarcity, resource abundance, or machines doing all these jobs.

I will look up all the research for this thread.

Just give me time.

Originally posted by dalan.
them with that ability, and there it is, computers would have to be endowed with the programming to make decisions of that nature.

If we do not program them that way, then never.

That's exactly what they're being programmed to do, and thats exactly what you'd need to for them to be competent enough to mange earth and all its complexities. By the time you could get this movement to critical mass machines will be about right there, its closer than you think. And VP claims machines wont monitor humans, but how then are they supposed to manage all resources and ensure people arent using more than their share.

The Venus Project would replace politicians with a cybernated society in which all of the physical entities would as quickly as possible be managed and operated by computerized systems.

Right. They're promising to quickly turn society into cyborgs merged with the system of technology. So what about those who dont want to be cyborgs? Either wayt they'll be dictated by the cyborgs. Guess what: at least half the population wont go for it for 100 years, meaning inevitable social conflict: conflict that is coming regardless as the Technocrat Transhumanists who inspired VP are already implementing this system having the helm of scientific progress and media in their palms.

Machines do help? I would hope so, without them we would not be having this conversation in this manner. You would not be able to go to the grocery at your convenience to get whatever food you can afford....without technology we would not have come as far as we have.

Spare us the falacious techno-grovel. Uh, technology saves lives... and it has the capacity to take more lives and faster.

And today I grow a major percentage of my food, in my first year, and the system we already have is already TOO imposing on whether or not I wannt to trade or sell any of it.

Computers can only calculate probabilities, they cannot force anyone to do anything. That requires sentience, something that they do not have.

Youre speaking in futuristic terms using modern arguments. Read Kurzweil,Goertzel, and get a grip on where technology is headed in the next 1-2 decades.

And you are not being socially engineered right now right? Your fear of technology taking over does not come from the movies that we have been watching since we were children right? Terminator, The Matirx, Lawnmower Man...etc...

Those movies are made to make a buck. By and large we're trained to love and worship technology and evolution everywhere we turn, and now we're being trained that since we use tools to enhance our abilities the onyl logical thing is to throw away our individual humanity to merge into the borg collective. Even the writers of Star Trek understand the threat of the collective, yet ZM and Kurzweil have star trek affiliated people including Shatner helping them push their social enginerering propaganda.

The point about my nature is, I'll take facts and decide what it will be. I will not have facts reality shaped by a techno-elite, et al, to tell me who I

Cutsie? We are heading toward a "one world government" right now against our will. we're being forced into this (social engineering) by people who want control over every aspect of our lives. There would be nothing "governing" us in the Venus project direction. It would simply be applying the scientific method to social issues to actually solve problems to get rid of the control that we hate so badly.

We're being ushered into a GG, so lets take part in the process?! And thats what I mean about cutsie: claim away anything that sounds bad about it, but when its time to implement a monolithic global system it WILL have to be enforced, PERIOD.

I agree. After watching the video's it was easy to see the change up after the suck you in point. Pure NWO Neo Communist propaganda.

Hey,

Thanks for your POV. I see from your crits that you are implying
that ZM is a more 'peace drone NWO'... and, as far as I think ZM
is soooooo much better than the current model of corporatocracy,
but the key things in the 'suits world' in wich the ZM wants to destroy,
the movement (through tthe films and the pdf) never addresses through, and just label 'freedom', 'no laws' and that technology will take care.

My resistence to ZM is mostly that:
-Total freedom always means 'muscle power', ignorance is power since 2 idiots can out number any single educated person... scalate this you you
can see the mess.
-A big computer... mistake. Competiton, diversity and 'local variables' are
the real thing.... Things that work in the netherlands wont work in desert,
to show this argument.
-Lack of psychology... That is a killer.. Where is the understanding of ego?
Nowhere. I know people EXTREMELY educated that are emotion-freaks like teens way beyond 30´s.

ZM is not the hard teocrat, corporated, fascist (alien) NWO.
But... afar from breaking paradigms, lacks of all human understandings, and yes, the most powerfull insight: what you understand of things is how
you relate to it.

When I read the first post I think I like most of that ideas. I can't find reason why people on earth couldn't transform to better organized community than now.

Most of that ideas are inevitable in future. For example this that work of human hands would be made by robots. No one could stop this.

That future would come no mater if NWO come or not. Of course some groups would not agree with that but it is nothing new. Amish movement did it already but it changed nothing to the mainstream development. Why. Because you can't change something if you don't do this from the inside.

I can't also made myself to feel worried because of that. Most of the people on the world are makin very primitive work for less than a dollar a day. China, Africa, India and many others. Their life are miserable. If their work would be made by robots the world would be forced to do something if their slave work wouldn't be needed anymore.

I see a hope in that ideas of Zeitigeist Movment but I have no illusion. All this doesn't depend on them. I hope this is just inevitable future.



[edit on 28-11-2009 by odyseusz]

Originally posted by TrueTruth

Actually that would be lack of education that is destroying us.

Now that, is an assumption. It's an untestable and certainly unproven belief. I'm all for education, but many highly educated people are also greedy and immoral - ie, to reuse a name - men like Kissenger.

Proliferating ignorance is what causes people to be culled into an idea like global warming.

Or, it might just be that science sometimes leads us to erroneous conclusions, or that, as we recently learned via those hacked emails - people are purposely fudging the data...why again? To establish their grip on power - a social phenomenon.




[edit on 28-11-2009 by TrueTruth]

Right, that is what I was saying, the majority have to rely on what scientists have to say. All to often scientists can be manipulated by political agendas, monetary value, and status...indeed a social phenomenon.

So get rid of the causes.

Ignorance being the greatest downfall of society would be highlighted by the fact that the majority have to rely on biased science for answers (Al Gore??).
Science does come to erroneous conclusions, that is why it is a discipline of methodology. So that we can observe, report, and relpicate to see what is true and what is not.

Better education, less ignorance, means more people with the technical capabilities to engage in such methodology. Remove the social factors that would cause greed and the fudging of data for some agenda and it no longer exists.

Originally posted by dalan.
Write poetry and play lutes? Sure, if you wanted to, but don't you have any hobbies now that you spend time enjoying? What about more time with friends and family? What about more time to enjoy your connections with other humans, relationships?

Talk about a utopian fantasy!! We'll task the machines in doing all our work for us, and dictating the distribution of resources, so we can all just hang out, have a good time, build our little hobby tricets and fish tanks (would these be allowed?), and suck up resources. But at no point will the machines doing all the work decide that we're just excess. Right.

So yeah, The Venus Project and Zeitgeist Movements are Marxism.

Thanks for at least bing honest.

Its a load of bull# to be honest, sadly thats all i can really say.

I give up with some beliefs.

But each to their own as they say

I was a part of the TZM since before day one of the start of their forums. I was a very active and loyal member to the movement. I will share with you what I know about TZM.

I do not believe TZM is a shill for the NWO but I believe they are a cult like organization. The leadership is a mess. The moderators of the forums are mainly kids or fools. The Forum is run by tanktop, who is the most inefficient man of morals and values that I have ever seen run anything before. He is the dude that drops the suitcase at the end of the second film. Nearly anyone he has given any kind of administrative power on the boards to is either an ignorant kid, or some devout James Randi follower. TZM is run like Never Never Land without Peter Pan. And Peter hardly contributes to the boards. They prohibit speaking about certain subjects, as you can see here:

www.thezeitgeistmovement.com...

(And if you cant get that link to work, it is because the site is broken that way. You have to cut and paste the link again.)

No, I do NOT think Peter is his real name. I went on acccepting that for early on quite sometime into the start of my experence there. And I know because I live in Florida and I noticed that The Venus Project was only 2-3 hours away and really wanted to know if they really existed, so I found their number, gave a call. I think it was Jacque answered the phone. He quickly passed the phone to Roxanne Meddows. She was very nice. But during our conversation, while she was refering something we were talking about she paused before his (Peter) name and then said "...um, oh yes Peter.....Or at least that is what we call him." I will never forget it. So I asked and have been looking for legal documents where Peter has been sued, as he claims he was, to show is real name on who the suit was addressed to. And Jordan Maxwell also uses an fake name, as you can see here:

www.ftc.gov...

And we know that a lot of Peter's work was Jordan Maxwell when he made his films.


Jacque Fresco either was or is a Raelian, as you can see here:

raelianews.org...


When I was a part of TZM at the start of their forums, there from 200 to 2000 people viewing or partispating online at one time. right now I am on their forums and there is 1 Guest online and 1 person viewing. It is a dying movement and is a really a lost cause. I would say that 95% or more of the people who originally started with me there are now no loger there at all.

I could go on and on so I wont. lol I will watch the 3rd film if and when it comes out. I would recommend the movies to watch but not the movement its' self....And that is being nice.

[edit on 28-11-2009 by ItzMeRon]

[edit on 28-11-2009 by ItzMeRon]

Originally posted by RobertPaulsim
Nowhere. I know people EXTREMELY educated that are emotion-freaks like teens way beyond 30´s.

Bingo. They think you can just re-educate people and all the worlds problems will go away. Nice try. Look at the liberals out there worshipping Obama after 8 years of chastizing Bush worshippers for doing the same. And the ZM is a progressive movement. (In comparison: Eugenics, Soviet / Communism and even the Nazi's were all progressive movements)

reply to post by dalan.


The quote function here makes me batty, so I'll just do it the old fashioned way...

"Social interaction. Changing climate. Adapting to circumstance, these are mechanisms for change that I was relating to. When someone comes to a new conclusion, that conclusion is re-enforced by the growth of new synapse connections in the brain. That is growth. `Learning, experience, these are apart of our evolution."

You are correct about what happens to the brain when we learn - new neural connections are made. However, this is not passed on to offspring any more than rhinoplasty would result in my children not inheriting my honker. That's just not how it works.

"Social engineering" simply means that if you grow up in a profit structure that engineers scarcity you are more likely to be socialized towards greed."

I still don't think that follows. Again, I point to social reinforcers as primary, and the science supports this.

"What about indigenous tribes through out the world that had no concept of greed or power? Many native American tribes shared resources, and technological developments among the society, because if they did not work together they would not survive."

Indeed. It is often observed that in many tribes, it is scarcity of resources that actually led to better cooperation - quite the opposite of how the ZM imagines it. Also, many of these tribes could also be quite cruel. They were in no way less violent. Simply not true.

"Machines already make decisions for us, Doppler radar can make scans for pilots so that they know how high they are flying instead of trying to eye it themselves."

True enough. But there's a reason we still have pilots in those planes - machines aren't very good at emergency landings. There's a specific example I have in mind, described to me by a retired NASA scientist I know...the nuts and bolts of it is that he made some kind of miraculous recovery of a plane out of control, and the scientists who studied it have concluded that a machine would have never saved those lives. Machines offer wonderful assistance - but the VP takes it to a form of radical fundamentalism, as if they will offer us salvation from ourselves. And it's folly to believe our own inventions will save us. To say nothing of the many jobs machines can't do, or the falsity of resource abundance JF postulates - simply not proven.

I eagerly await the hard data.