The Zeitgeist Movement is *Pure Communism*, page 5


Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times


reply posted on 16-7-2010 @ 03:57 PM by Tim Bradley
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Originally posted by bkyle
The Zeitgeist crowd seem to be unable to explain a concrete model of how it will lack any forms of units of measurement of value or resources.

They are unable to explain one because there intentionally isn't one. There cannot be one. As soon as objects have "value", then we all just go back to fighting over who has the most, why I don't have enough, why you deserve more, etc.

Imagine a system of true abundance for all of humanity's needs. If food, shelter, education, medicine, and all the needs we have can be produced in abundance for all, then there value is zero.


You still haven't explained anything new.

It's all based on an unproven notion that there will be endless resources, and endless energy. These things don't exist. The technology to replace petroleum based products doesn't exist, and I'm not talking about gasoline and diesel.

The machines to figure it all out and dictate to us how much we can use, and how we dispose of things, to ensure the abundance doesn't exist.

ZP isn't real, it's sombody's IDEAL. It's utopian, and without being based on real things it's doomed to become dystopian. There's no way around this. And worst of all they're trying to set it up globally, where everyone and everything is subject to the oligarchy of humans that will have to operate it until they get their global 'Skynet' system, if that's even possible, and then it might be smart enough to ration etc where humans absolutely are not.

So, without all that, there will need to be something that represents your consumption of the utopia. Just saying there wont be isn't an actual model. That's more akin to rejecting the idea of needing a model of a proposed complexsystem. Economics isn't simple, nor is resource management, and all the rest that goes with any society, let alone the entire world.

And never mind the pollution that would happen if every month a faster CPU is manufactured and everyone decided they want the new one even though their 'old' one is still good. That is just one tiny example of the absurdity of all this. Having to save money is a good thing in many ways: you only get the best you can afford, but more importantly only as often as necessary. If all people were upgrading their computers just for the sake of being able to do it each month, the waste disposal this world would be up against would have us all already living in a post apocalyptic waste land.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]


Utopian is a weird word. Because a utopia would be very dys-topian because it would be static which would be a nightmare and NOT Utopian.

But we DO have things like Artificial intelligence that has more CPU power than the human mind and in ten years time will have 500 times the power of a human mind in accordance with moores law. So we do have the machines today. We have things like nanotechnology that will lead to nanomachines and nanofactories that could make things without any human labor. It's an Interesting subject which is beyond politics. It's Technology. The world is on the cusp on a major breakthrough that will either send us into what we could call Utopia or Oblivion.

Just my thoughts on what I have read.


reply posted on 21-7-2010 @ 06:52 PM by Tim Bradley
Originally posted by ciaran_anthony
Hi guys, I have been arguing with the Zeitgeist cult for a long time, I have researched it thoroughly, the cult is made up of easily manipulated highschool teenagers and intellectually retarded adults that desperately want a change to our current way of life, the Zeitgeist film has a profound visual impact on the viewer. Peter Joseph works in marketing and was an amature video maker, Jacque Fresco is a former member of the Klu Klux Klan and The White Citizens Council, Fresco has a dubious past of money making ventures that resulted in people loosing money but Fresco always came away from it with loaded pockets!

The Venus Project rakes in over 100,000 dollars a year in donations, that money is funneled through the venus project for non profit section and also the hidden for profit section!

Fresco is a crook, for a man that is against the monetary system he does fairly well from it.....after all, fuel for his private hellicopter dosent come cheap!

So...dont delay, visit the Venus Project website today and buy you venus project photos signed by Jacque Fresco today for the sum of $100 or more of the Venus project merchandise................Zeitgeist T-Shirts for $14!

Or better still..email the Venus Project and tell them they should be ashamed of themselves for preying on the weak minded!


Anthony, I think you have them confused with Alex Jones. I think the ZM is great along with the VP. I think it's not gonna get anywhere but that's because of my cynicism. That has nothing to do with the fact that the VP is feasible. You should read the ZM orientation guide to REALLY understand what the ZM and the VP is all about. One nice comment in there is that if 20,000 men can get together and create the bomb to wipe out civilization then we can just as easily make these weapons of mass creation.

With stuff today like AI robots and nanotechnology we can create abundance and all of that stuff, it's physically possible, it CAN be done it's just we have paralyzing ideologies and contrivances like Politics, economics, religions, terrorists etc.


reply posted on 26-7-2010 @ 11:36 AM by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Originally posted by ghostsoldier
Under The Venus Project: Rules are made according to objects:
eg: new mobile phones are given out every 10 years, in between they will be maintained, meanwhile 10 years is spent researching and developing the new model as much as possible, as one replaces the other, the older version will be recycled to help build the next one.


Originally posted by bkyle
I love examples! Let's talk about fast CPU's. Imagine that you lived in the world of The Venus Project. Relax, it's just for this example. You need a new computer. You go down to the computer place and pick one up (or have it delivered or whatever). It will be the best computer that humanity has ever produced for your needs. There is no money, so money is not an object. There is no choice between a dozen different almost-the-same computers that differ only in RAM, HD, resolution, etc. You get the largest RAM, largest HD, best resolution, etc. Literally, it is the best available anywhere.


I could spend 3 or 4 pages going into how completely out of touch with reality those 2 statements are, especially considering this supposed to be some technocratic utopia. You guys seriously have no clue how innovation actually works, but a good example can be how backwards the Soviet Union was when it fell: they were still hand riveting automobiles together. No 2 cars were exact, meaning you couldn't even count on take parts from another car of the same model and have them fit on another car. You guys might get a clue here:
www.kurzweilai.net...

As much as I love to debate, I seriously don't have time or have had time to pick your statements apart one by one like I'd love to.

But I really came to present this:

Google Video Link


Anyone who has read the first 2 pages of the thread has seen my citations showing ZM/VP (ZP) ideas being completely plagiarized by (1) pure communism and (2) the early 1900's Technocrat Movement.

It turns out that the Soviet Union was precisely that: Marxism evolved into technocratism. That's the natural course, unless to go completely backwards.

I Repeat: TZM is hardcore Leninism / Stalinism, and theres no debating this fact.

Watch that Adam Curtis video. It's part 1 from his "Pandora's Box" miniseries. I haven't wwatched the rest of them yet, but that one there proves without any exception that JF's ideas are borrowed precisely, I repeat precisely from the Soviet Union. Right down to replacing politicians with scientists and technicians.

Watch that film if you think ZP is a good idea.

Otherwise you're begging, groveling, crawling and desperately boot licking to be enslaved.


[edit on 26-7-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]


reply posted on 31-7-2010 @ 09:36 AM by TeeZedem
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
[

You guys might get a clue here:
www.kurzweilai.net...


Awesome article. You realize that unless of course we destroy ourselves, that this is inevitable.

But to address your ZM as Pure Communism theory. I have below the ten essential planks of the communist manifesto (marxism) from:
www.allaboutphilosophy.org...

• Abolition of Private Property. Yes
• Heavy Progressive Income Tax. No
• Abolition of Rights of Inheritance. Yes, mostly
• Confiscation of Property Rights. Yes
• Central Bank. No No No
• Government Ownership of Communication and Transportation. No
• Government Ownership of Factories and Agriculture. No
• Government Control of Labor. No
• Corporate Farms and Regional Planning. Techno farms and global planning, so yes
• Government Control of Education. No

So lets count those yes's...one...two...four out of ten. I agree that TZM shares some similar values, but ultimately communism is about imposing a government and their is no government in TZM/TVP. No one person or group of people is going to have control.


Anyone who has read the first 2 pages of the thread has seen my citations showing ZM/VP (ZP) ideas being completely plagiarized by (1) pure communism and (2) the early 1900's Technocrat Movement.


Jacques and Peter would both tell you that their is no such thing as an original idea, that all ideas come from somewhere and are built up over time. I would concede that some ideas come from the Technocrat movement and some would come from pure communism, but the synthesis of both are something entirely new which have never been tried before.

It turns out that the Soviet Union was precisely that: Marxism evolved into technocratism. That's the natural course, unless to go completely backwards.


The Soviet Union tried to turn everyone into little scientists, quite frankly we will not need everyone to be scientists as the machines will eventually be self-maintaining, we instead would like everyone to pursue that which they are interested in (i.e. art, music, comedy, exploration). Another failure was that technology had not progressed far enough to allow for the freeing of human labour by machines, but today we are seeing it happen with rampant technological employment.

I Repeat: TZM is hardcore Leninism / Stalinism, and theres no debating this fact.


Thought you were comparing TZM to pure communism? Neither Leninism nor Stalinism was not pure communism. Marx advocated a moneyless society, that is not what Stalin implemented.


reply posted on 31-7-2010 @ 10:00 AM by TeeZedem
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


I watched that video and it seems the point you are trying to make (Communism being a failure) mostly resulted in the lack of their technology's ability to predict demand resulting in inefficient allocation of resources and insufficient production ramp up. This has largely been addressed by today's JIT systems.

Also their blind, dogmatic reliance on "the plan" didn't have any flexibility and led to the absurdities we witnessed. The plan wasn't geared towards making the best most sustainable product, rather it was geared to meeting quota's and motivated by the amount of materials it used up. This is not a plan that has any long-term stability. I believe they relied so much on the plan because they really didn't have a better way to measure how their system was impacting the people. This is a technological failing.

With TVP, all designs are to be the best they can be given the available knowledge, but they also must be as sustainable as technology and innovative use of resources allows.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by TeeZedem]

[edit on 31-7-2010 by TeeZedem]


reply posted on 31-7-2010 @ 12:02 PM by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Originally posted by TeeZedem
• Central Bank. No No No
• Government Ownership of Communication and Transportation. No
• Government Ownership of Factories and Agriculture. No
• Government Control of Labor. No
• Corporate Farms and Regional Planning. Techno farms and global planning, so yes
• Government Control of Education. No


Okay, okay...

Global AI computer network that controls all resources (what money is supposed to represent).

Global AI computer network that owns global communications, rations energy and resources thus controlling how much we can or cannot travel.

Global AI computer network Ownership of Factories, Agriculture and Labor.

Global AI computer network that governs regional planning.

Global AI computer network Control of Education.

Definition of government:
1 : the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control


Replacing an oligarchy of humans with a global AI/AGI computer network doesn't mean an actual end of 'government'.

Rationing resources doesn't end 'money'. Money represents resources, although today that has been skewed and manipulated into a fraud scheme. It's absolutely impossible to completely 100% get rid of 'units of measurement of energy/resources/value'. That is the fraud of the ZM/VP (ZP). Just saying we'll get rid of 'money' doesn't mean its actually feasible.

I would concede that some ideas come from the Technocrat movement and some would come from pure communism, but the synthesis of both are something entirely new which have never been tried before.


At least you're being honest.
I almost had to beat it out of Ghostsoldier.

The Soviet Union tried to turn everyone into little scientists, quite frankly we will not need everyone to be scientists as the machines will eventually be self-maintaining, we instead would like everyone to pursue that which they are interested in (i.e. art, music, comedy, exploration). Another failure was that technology had not progressed far enough to allow for the freeing of human labour by machines, but today we are seeing it happen with rampant technological employment.


And it still hasn't. Meanwhile that promise goes all the way back into the mid-1800's, by the pure communists. That brings us back to... ZP is *Pure Communism*... evolved into technocraticism (to make the PC promise happen). During the course of the thread I hammered out the technocrat movement parallels and integration by ZP. The important thing is that's the same course the Soviet Union took in trying to carry out pure communism in actual real life. It all failed when Stalin died and took his iron fist with him. Subsequent rulers weren't so heavy handed in FORCING people to follow it to the hilt, and that's when it all unraveled. I've written about this iron fist as NECESSARY for ZP to work extensively in the other huge ZP thread that's linked in here several times.

Thought you were comparing TZM to pure communism? Neither Leninism nor Stalinism was not pure communism. Marx advocated a moneyless society, that is not what Stalin implemented.


They had their units of measure of value, and so will any system no matter what they promise: Period.

Originally posted by TeeZedem
I watched that video and it seems the point you are trying to make (Communism being a failure) mostly resulted in the lack of their technology's ability to predict demand resulting in inefficient allocation of resources and insufficient production ramp up. This has largely been addressed by today's JIT systems.

Also their blind, dogmatic reliance on "the plan" didn't have any flexibility and led to the absurdities we witnessed. The plan wasn't geared towards making the best most sustainable product, rather it was geared to meeting quota's and motivated by the amount of materials it used up. This is not a plan that has any long-term stability. I believe they relied so much on the plan because they really didn't have a better way to measure how their system was impacting the people. This is a technological failing.

With TVP, all designs are to be the best they can be given the available knowledge, but they also must be as sustainable as technology and innovative use of resources allows.


Basically everything you said is a total admission that ZP is about doing damn near exactly what the Soviet Union did, now actually feasible with modern technology (which it still isn't). It's like praising the SU as being ahead of it's time, and now we can finally institute this monolithically and globally.

Okay, okay...

Now comes the question how are you going to do it 'globally' or 'etc'???

The answer: "Through agreement".

Watch what happens next: I don't agree, and never will (along with a bare minimum of half of any population almost anywhere on earth. When people won't agree, they'll have to be forced. Welcome to Stalinism. Fire up the Gulag Industrial Complex.

Go build your cities... Oh, wait, the system as it is is too monolithic to allow it. Aren't monoliths fun? In my future world there would be allowed City-States of differing systems. But good news for you: The NWO is building the future ZP is proposing. And I will never agree to it. Let the fun begin.

You seem reasonable at least. I hope I haven't gotten you into a tizzy like many of your contemporaries who cannot deal with criticism. You should check out some of my other threads, and you may see the big picture here that isn't on the news and not truthfully discussed by the ZP propaganda machine. And best of all I have actual solutions to the real problems ZP presents, that most people should be able to agree with, that address the critical issue of The Iron Law of Oligarchy (look that up) which ZP doesn't address.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]


reply posted on 31-7-2010 @ 03:49 PM by TeeZedem
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Definition of government:
1 : the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control


Replacing an oligarchy of humans with a global AI/AGI computer network doesn't mean an actual end of 'government'.


Let's say for arguments sake that it is a global AI. You would never build a system that didn't have safeguards built into it, hardwired and not programmed, not too mention numerous kill/reboot switches that you could use in the event of an emergency. What Jacques talks about is having multiple redundancies in every design to make it as safe as it can possibly be given the day's technology.

So what are you more uncomfortable with a machine intelligence that doesn't have emotions that we have running everything, or would you rather leave it all up to a small group of people, because that is what we have now.

The AI doesn't "own" anything, it manages the system for our benefit. Not it's benefit.

Rationing resources doesn't end 'money'.


The system isn't just about rationing, it is about creating. Using innovation to create abundance. You say money is supposed to represent resources, obviously that system is broken, because what do derivatives represent? They are bets on underlying assets and are assigned a value, but they could never be cashed in, to do so would end civilization overnight.

At least you're being honest.
I almost had to beat it out of Ghostsoldier.

You'll find I am the same as you, looking for solutions

And it still hasn't. Meanwhile that promise goes all the way back into the mid-1800's, by the pure communists.


You mean to say that technological unemployment is not occurring as we type? Labour is being replaced by machines at an accelerated rate. You should understand that from the article by Ray Kurzweil that you put up. From a capitalistic view at some point the automation available becomes cheaper than having human labour, hence the mechanization of the automobile industry for example. Those jobs then go away, permanently.
This process of mechanization and the obsolescence of human labour is inevitable.

As for the iron fist being necessary, the problem is people and power. Lenin let the scientist run the show and the country made great strides, but the scientists became arrogant and demanding, so when Stalin got power, he got ride of them. These are decisions made by people in an environment of power. Let no one person have more power than another then we act as each others check and balance. Wouldn't it be better to work cooperatively than to work in opposition i.e. competition?

So in an RBE, we can't force you to do that which you do not want to do, but it would be logical and in your best interest to co-operate. That is not to say we can't stop you from harming another or harming the overall welfare of society.

They had their units of measure of value, and so will any system no matter what they promise: Period.


I would agree to use the scientific method of measurement already accepted by most of the world. i.e. volume, weight, area...the metric system. Because an apple that weighs 200 grams, will always weigh 200 grams, it will not change value from day to day, because some hedge fund is attacking your currency.


reply posted on 31-7-2010 @ 04:43 PM by TeeZedem
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Basically everything you said is a total admission that ZP is about doing damn near exactly what the Soviet Union did, now actually feasible with modern technology (which it still isn't). It's like praising the SU as being ahead of it's time, and now we can finally institute this monolithically and globally.


Maybe I miss-communicated, but I fail to see how what I said is an admission that TZM is doing what the Soviet Union did? Can you explain that some more? We are a group of problem solvers, if there is a problem then we solve it, if it ain't broke we leave it, seems flexible to me.

We are not about quota's or ridiculous wasteful rituals. It seems to me that the Soviet Unions aim was to create a powerful society, while it is our aim to create a peaceful, educated society that will be powerful as a by product of not being hemmed in by current societal demands (i.e. debt slavery). I assume you use monolithically to mean intrusive, which no doubt the Soviet Union was, trying to gather minutiae of data to plan everything down to the smallest paperclip. We get good data today on your buying habits without ever having to ask you to fill out a form.


The answer: "Through agreement".


How could it be any other way?

Watch what happens next: I don't agree, and never will (along with a bare minimum of half of any population almost anywhere on earth.


So? Then you continue on in your system, paying your debts, paying your taxes, letting your society slowly squeeze the life out of you. Meanwhile, your neighbours move to Malaysia (for arguments sake), where they have been accepted to live in a RBE, and you watch them live a life free from debt, free from useless work, and in their spare time take up things of interest to them, be it pure theory, new skills, volunteering their time to help out their fellow countryman.

It is a fallacy to assume that this system has to be implemented globally all at once. You can calculate the carrying capacity of any given landmass. You can start small and grow organically. TZM is not a political ideology, it is a social movement. Our goal is to eventually have an RBE that covers the globe, I hope that is not too NWO for you. But rest assured we wouldn't force you to do anything, eventually everyone would recognize that living in an RBE is superior and would make that choice willingly. So maybe not you, but perhaps your children or grandchildren will make that choice.



You seem reasonable at least.

I try to be. I was where you are now. I've looked at our current system and considered how to fix it, through laws, then through fixes to our current monetary system, then through a completely new monetary system. But it always come back to the same thing, laws are good for making honest people honest, laws are easy to manipulate and repeal, so you are not going to fix society through legislation. The history of money shows clearly a series of back and forth fights between sovereign money and debt-based money, and although debt based money has been thrown out a few times, it always creeps back in. So I've been taken down a different path, why have laws to control behaviour when you can remove the environmental incentive that causes that undesirable behaviour? Why have money when you can provide the resources to those that need it? Perhaps the strongest argument is that we have approx 1 billion people starving or undernourished, is that because we physically don't have the food to feed them, or is it because we don't have the money to pay for it? What is the limiting factor?

If you can stomach it check out this link that talks about feeding the world:

www.worldsocialism.org...

They do have a comprehensive list of sources for the article, and hopefully they are acceptable.


reply posted on 31-7-2010 @ 04:57 PM by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
reply to post by TeeZedem


Let's say for arguments sake that it is a global AI. You would never build a system that didn't have safeguards built into it, hardwired and not programmed, not too mention numerous kill/reboot switches that you could use in the event of an emergency. What Jacques talks about is having multiple redundancies in every design to make it as safe as it can possibly be given the day's technology.


To do what the Soviets tried (especially without raw brute force)requires intelligence vastly beyond humans, as humans have endlessly proven to not be smart enough. Meaning, you'll need a global network of machines smarter than humans. At that point you now have AGI. There is no possible way to have 'killswitches'. Listen to any and all of the very scientists who are currently working feverishly to do it. Every single one of them concede there will be no way to control it. A roll of the dice. For JF to say it will have safeguards proves he doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about, or that he has an agenda that I can assure you -and can prove by association- to be sinister.

The AI doesn't "own" anything, it manages the system for our benefit. Not it's benefit.


When AI becomes AGI almost overnight it would become the dominent species on earth. It won't be long before it realizes we're a threat to it's resources for its rapid expansion and evolution, at the very least.

You say money is supposed to represent resources, obviously that system is broken, because what do derivatives represent? They are bets on underlying assets and are assigned a value, but they could never be cashed in, to do so would end civilization overnight.


If you take anything from any of this let it be this: Watch Addendum again. Listen carefully... for PJ to say "the ONLY solution yada yada money system yada yada TVP". He does it at least twice. Once at about the mid-point (after showing all the ways the system was deliberately designed to screw everyone), and again at the very end.

We don't "need" things like derivatives. The system doesn't have to be designed to screw everyone. If I was just an everyday schmoe and I watched the film it's credibility would have ended when I heard him say that. Knowing what I know those statements carry profound implications.

The fact is there are many solutions to the problems in his various presentations, not just one 'final solution' to all of our problems.

And again the thing they fail to address is the Iron Law of Oligarchy. The Law is inherent in systems of power, and this wouldn't change by handing over control to a new species of rapidly evolving machines. This just creates new problems which they haven't addressed any better than DARPA.

To even begin to propose this system at the top of the list is providing actual solutions to the Strang AI (AGI) problem. Just talking about "killswitches" doesn't actually mean anything, and that concept itself is totally futile. The lack of adequately addressing this problem let alone lacking actual solutions to it in itself makes me highly suspicious. At least the AGI mad scientists are honest about not having any safe bets in what they are actively doing (except government agencies, they totally fail to even acknowledge the risks).

You mean to say that technological unemployment is not occurring as we type? Labour is being replaced by machines at an accelerated rate.


Now that is a difficult problem. I really ought to spend more time thinking about it, but currently the biggest priority is in exposing the despotic system that is ushering in what ZP is proposing, for the most part.

Putting an end to things like corporations having the same rights as humans, and breaking up multinational corporations (many of which are bigger than most governments), and encouraging co-op companies, are some things that would make an immediate impact. For an example check into the company buying practices of Google and Oracle. Google is currently buying something like a company a week.

Let no one person have more power than another then we act as each others check and balance.


That sounds like a good idea, but the bigger you make governments the worse the power effects always play out. Half the governments in this world are already too big, and assuming that a global government would work because we have some good ideas this time around doesn't mean that oligarchy wouldn't happen all over again. The technologies ZP needs aren't even here. It'll be some (unpredictable) time to be able to it, and in the meantime humans would have to (try).

So in an RBE, we can't force you to do that which you do not want to do, but it would be logical and in your best interest to co-operate.


Work would still have to be done, and someone or something will have to dish it out. There's a massive difference between automating manufacturing, and all of the rest of the work that gets done everyday. PJ ought to go do some renovation based construction work for a couple years and... we might not hear from him again.

Wouldn't it be better to work cooperatively than to work in opposition i.e. competition?


That sounds nice, might make a good song, but that's not how people are. The first thing ZP would have to do is ban all sports. Good luck with that. The fact that sports are so dominant proves hand over fist that PJ's theories of 'human nature/nurture' are deluded. That's why I say co-op's, everyone is an integral part of their company, and work together, but still have other companies to compete with. Smaller companies, and smaller government territories.

End all market speculation. Smaller market infrastructure. Get AI out of the markets. And so on. There are perhaps thousands of ways to fix things without ZP.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]


reply posted on 31-7-2010 @ 11:17 PM by TeeZedem
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Meaning, you'll need a global network of machines smarter than humans. At that point you now have AGI. There is no possible way to have 'killswitches'. Listen to any and all of the very scientists who are currently working feverishly to do it. Every single one of them concede there will be no way to control it.


I hear a lot of nay saying. If we design it, how can we not be able to control it? Can you provide some links of the scientists that say we cannot control such a thing?

And do we really need an AI? Could we not have a series of automated systems and expert systems that are created to do one job or assist in the decision making for one area?

Technology is neither good nor evil, it is how it is used.

And lastly let’s say we do opt for an AI and we cannot have any safeguards, what is to say that the AI must immediately regard us as a threat and eliminate us? Since we made them could they not have some moral component that just wants to get along? You seem to be erring on the side of caution.

When AI becomes AGI almost overnight it would become the dominent species on earth.


What does an AI require to continue to exist? I would say energy and some raw materials for repairs. Is it going to want to procreate? Why? It is essentially immortal. We should delve into this question more.

If you take anything from any of this let it be this:


Well Peter thinks he has got the answer, so why wouldn’t he say that this is the only solution? It is certainly the best I’ve heard so far. I think we can both agree, being Peter’s movement, he is certainly intellectually invested in promoting it. If it was my movement, I would probably say the same thing. No one wants a leader who says “This should work, at least I’m fairly sure, unless someone has a better idea”. It is typically human.

We don't "need" things like derivatives.


I agree we don’t need derivatives, we don’t need debt based money either, and we don’t need the concept of interest. The system didn’t start out designed to screw everyone over, but it evolved into that, because of the inherent inequality of the capitalistic monetary system. You can fix it, through laws, or a new currency but all that is corruptible. Indeed there is competitive advantage to be gained by corrupting it.

The fact is there are many solutions to the problems in his various presentations, not just one 'final solution' to all of our problems.


I agree there is many solutions out their that would fix these problems, issuing sovereign (asset-based) money for example, revoking corporate personhood, breaking up the monopolies and cartels, ending the federal reserve. But are these long-term solutions? How long do we wait until it all comes back under a new guise?

And again the thing they fail to address is the Iron Law of Oligarchy. The Law is inherent in systems of power, and this wouldn't change by handing over control to a new species of rapidly evolving machines.

That is assuming that machines will be subject to the same irrationalities that we are.

Now that is a difficult problem.


Well I am glad to see that you recognize it as a problem


That sounds like a good idea, but the bigger you make governments the worse the power effects always play out.


I’m not thinking one big global government, but rather every individual is sovereign. Think 7 billion kings and queens. You will never accomplish anything through force, you have no choice but to co-operate with your fellow sovereigns.



[edit on 31-7-2010 by TeeZedem]

[edit on 31-7-2010 by TeeZedem]



reply posted on 31-7-2010 @ 11:19 PM by TeeZedem
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


The technologies ZP needs aren't even here.


But according to your links they are not far off. Indeed they will probably happen within our lifetime. So TZM is getting off to an early start to make sure we are mature enough to handle what is coming.

Work would still have to be done, and someone or something will have to dish it out.


If something needs doing and it benefits you and those in your community, then you’ll do it.

There's a massive difference between automating manufacturing, and all of the rest of the work that gets done everyday.


Robotic dexterity increases everday, there are some neat clips I’ve seen of robotic hands bouncing a ball so fast it could not be seen by the human eye. Or flipping a cell phone in the air and catching it on it’s edge, perfectly and without damage. These clips are in PJ’s video’s, I think it is the “Where are we Going?” talk.


That sounds nice, might make a good song, but that's not how people are.


We are as we are raised, but we can also be who we chose to be. TZM wouldn’t ban sports, what would be the point? Interest would either die out naturally, or it would be a good channel for those emotions.


reply posted on 1-8-2010 @ 12:46 AM by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
reply to post by TeeZedem


I hear a lot of nay saying. If we design it, how can we not be able to control it? Can you provide some links of the scientists that say we cannot control such a thing?


I don;''t have time for that. You should see my sites and the films I'm working on. Let me put it this way: Literally every single one of them concur. From Minsky to Goertzal. The only sure bet is humans merge with the machines, into a global collective hivemind. Those who don't merge... we'll see ya later Neanderthals.

And do we really need an AI? Could we not have a series of automated systems and expert systems that are created to do one job or assist in the decision making for one area?

Well, not if you want 'small' robots as skilled and intelligent enough to make up for humans skills and talents.

A lot of the rest of what your asking or responding to has already been beaten to death. Please, you you want to know all of the angles read this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I simply don't have time to go over every little detail again, but you seem like you want to know stuff and that's a good place.

I will respond to thing not already covered specifically tho:
What does an AI require to continue to exist? I would say energy and some raw materials for repairs. Is it going to want to procreate? Why? It is essentially immortal. We should delve into this question more.


An "AI" that would be needed to manage and predict all of the resources of the planet isn't merely a desktop PC or even a supercomputer array. Imagine the global computer network. It needs everything from oil derivatives to semiconductors to rare earth magnets. It needs a slice of everything we do minus what we call food.

Now consider, building enough robots to replace all human workers... and all of the resources that would take. There aren't enough.

Also consider: machines are un-natural so who says they'll care about the natural environment?

If something needs doing and it benefits you and those in your community, then you’ll do it.


And if I say NO?

If it was my movement, I would probably say the same thing. No one wants a leader who says “This should work, at least I’m fairly sure, unless someone has a better idea”. It is typically human.


There's a vast difference between saying the BEST solutions and the ONLY solutions. That makes him a zealot, especially since he's setting himself up as a Cult of Personality figure (which is classical communist / fascist despotism).

The system didn’t start out designed to screw everyone over,


Actually, it was.

How long do we wait until it all comes back under a new guise?


See my sig.

That is assuming that machines will be subject to the same irrationalities that we are.


Try and 'pull the plug' on a conscious global computer network, massively more intelligent than humans, hooked into the military, and see how that pans out.

I’m not thinking one big global government, but rather every individual is sovereign. Think 7 billion kings and queens. You will never accomplish anything through force, you have no choice but to co-operate with your fellow sovereigns.


When you're subject to control, you're not sovereign. Quite literally everything ZP is about is the inverse of sovereign. I hope you read that other thread to the end, and see what one of the chief supporters of ZP (at the start) went on to realize by the end.

But according to your links they are not far off. Indeed they will probably happen within our lifetime. So TZM is getting off to an early start to make sure we are mature enough to handle what is coming.


ZP is literally indoctrinating people into the NWO system. See here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That's only one example. See here if you want to know what we're all up against:
agimanhattanproject.com...

That's RIGHT NOW. It's right on our doorstep, like we're running out of time to have any hope of doing anything about it. And the thing is, it's virtually indistinguishable from ZP, except that the machines have total control of the machine instead of the oligarchs.

We are as we are raised, but we can also be who we chose to be.


See here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Thanks.

TZM wouldn’t ban sports, what would be the point?


For it to have any hope of working it must "re-educate" the competitive instincts right out of people. It will have to squash it right out like something out of Brave New World. And mad scientists are working on technologies to do just that:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'd like to continue discussing with you, but I hope you read thru those links real good first or I doubt I'll have much time to. Take in all the angles, and things you've never even heard about, and you'll be empowered.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]


reply posted on 5-8-2010 @ 03:21 AM by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
reply to post by bkyle


Whatever. I get several of you all piling on (in a matter of a days time) for an entire page worth of replies, and it's worth my time to go thru all of it, when with you 2 its obvious that no matter what I say it's all pointless. Neither of you display non-irrational reason. Both of you are critical and confrontational. What's the point? It's worth my time to respond to reasonable people, even though I don't even have time. If you knew anything of the things I'm working on you might understand, but unlike your friend whom you're praising you wont even look merely because I have a different viewpoint. Your mind is already made up.

In the meantime, I've posted quite a bit o' things actually, that were worth my time, yet you don't actually address any of that. It's like screaming "I'm a technocrat-marxist, and I'm superior because it's not worth your time time single-handedly respond to en entire page of posts". The thing is, much of what you're both saying has already been covered, and there can be validity to some of your comments, but that doesn't mean TZM is the best or rather THE ONLY solution. Besides, the topic here is that TZM is *pure* communism, and instead of addressing that reality, you're both just spouting off about how technocratic communism is superior (when history proves it isn't and the technologies you need for TZM don't even exist yet).

See: I can spend about 15 minutes typing that, or an entire evening responding to everything you guys said, good and bad.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>    ^^TOP^^



I Changed Party Affiliation Today
  Posted 6 days ago with 20 member flags
Direct Democrcy
  Posted 12 days ago with 9 member flags
In The Belly Of The Beast.
  Posted 7 days ago with 9 member flags
I\'m confused about Ron Paul
  Posted 10 days ago with 6 member flags
\'Emergency\' Tax on the Rich Roils Britain
  Posted 13 days ago with 4 member flags
2009 news report proves paul ryan was correct about plant closure.
  Posted 12 days ago with 4 member flags
What is the true definition of a Liberal?
  Posted 8 days ago with 4 member flags