Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Do you support the Zeitgeist Movement?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedDo you support the Zeitgeist Movement?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
Message
WormHole View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: July 24 2012
Location: OutOfThisWorld
Status: Offline
Points: 24
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Do you support the Zeitgeist Movement?
    Posted: July 25 2012 at 09:40
I just started to study Zeitgeist ideology and its the best,im just wondering if there are any fans of zeitgeist here?


Jacque Fesco ♥


     
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2012 at 09:54
I had to look this up, as I know what the term Zeitgeist means, but had not heard of the movement.

From Wikipedia:
"Zeitgeist proposes that humanity, essentially, abolish capitalism, the nation-state and parliamentary bodies, and adopt a moneyless global socioeconomic system in which all resources would be equitably, commonly and sustainably shared."

So to answer your question: hell no.
Back to Top
Smurph View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 11 2012
Location: Columbus&NYC
Status: Offline
Points: 3167
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2012 at 09:57
Originally posted by WormHole WormHole wrote:

I just started to study Zeitgeist ideology and its the best,im just wondering if there are any fans of zeitgeist here?


Jacque Fesco ♥
 
 
This sounds like some people trying to feel super important like they can fix all the worlds problems. This to me, is a dangerous way of thinking and it can lead to narcissism, unwarranted confidence and feelings of significance.

I mean, I understand wanting to change the world for the better. I think we all want this place to suck less. But, naming your movement the same name as that hyped up conspiracy crazy movie is pretty dumb.
 
I also feel like it was written by some teenager that is trying to sound really smart.
 
 
For instance this part:

Similarly, the system also requires problems/constant consumer interest in order to work. The more people who have cancer or cars that breakdown, the better the economy due to the servicing of those problems. Needless to say, this also generates an inherent disregard for human well being and the environment. Sustainability, efficiency and preservation are the enemies of this model.

 
 
The way he's writing is driving me crazy.
 
 
Or this sh*t:
 

TZM takes a very different view. Rather than take each problem on a per case bases and work to solve that problem within the confines of the custom accepted system - a system that might, in fact, be creating the problem itself - TZM steps back to consider the inherent logic of the issues themselves and how they relates to the emerging Scientific Benchmark(with respect the The Scientific Method) - absent respect for social tradition and custom.

In the case of 1 Billion people starving, the solution does not rest with the need for more donations, more governmental subsides or even legislation to limit possible causal abuse and exploitation of such regions as those are not direct solution since they do not relate to the mechanics of survival. Rather they relate and intermediate with current social customs.

The real issue and hence logic is Technical - not political or financial. Starvation is a technical problem where clean, life supporting resources are not made available to a certain region for some reason. The question is then asked: Is there an empirical environmental restriction which is making those resources unavailable? The answer today is a clear no. It is well noted by the W.H.O. and others that there is plenty of food being produced in the world to feed everyone and we also have clear technical means to also desalinate and clean polluted water to make it safe for drinking. This can be dome on an industrial scale.

 
This is what they are saying is the SOLUTION section. He does not offer real solutions. He analyzes the worlds problems and defines those problems and tries to say what he thinks the reasons for those problems are but their claim that our model is not sustainable would be fine and dandy if they would actually tell me about a real solution.
 
They want this kind of crazy conceptual reform that itself is even less sustainable.

BLEHBLEHBLEH we need to use scientific method to bleh bleh bleh all the worlds problems. REALLY? Telling some stupid hippie you're using scientific method to fix problems might impress them, but it DOESNT say a damn thing about anything to me.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2012 at 09:58
I tend to dislike utopian fantasies that I believe would lead to strife, famine, and technological stagnation. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
tamijo View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4287
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2012 at 09:58
Would be cool, but have you thought about what would come after that Ouch
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2012 at 09:59
Originally posted by Smurph Smurph wrote:

 
I also feel like it was written by some teenager that is trying to sound really smart.
 
 
For instance this part:

Similarly, the system also requires problems/constant consumer interest in order to work. The more people who have cancer or cars that breakdown, the better the economy due to the servicing of those problems. Needless to say, this also generates an inherent disregard for human well being and the environment. Sustainability, efficiency and preservation are the enemies of this model.



The real issue would be the complete economic ignorance of that statement.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Smurph View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 11 2012
Location: Columbus&NYC
Status: Offline
Points: 3167
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2012 at 10:02
  1. No Money or Market System
  2. Automation of Labor
  3. Technological Unification of Earth via "Systems" Approach.
  4. Access over Property.
  5. Self-Contained/Localized City and Production Systems.
  6. Science as the Methodology for Governance

I'm gonna f**king shoot my brains out.

I agree with like a few things said on that site but they way they were said and their context and how everything is put is silly. I don't think these guys actually know much about the world.
Back to Top
Smurph View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 11 2012
Location: Columbus&NYC
Status: Offline
Points: 3167
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2012 at 10:03
And by "a few things on the site" I mean basically the parts where he said everything sucks. His reasons slash EVERYTHING else is wrong and silly.
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2012 at 10:03
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Smurph Smurph wrote:

 
I also feel like it was written by some teenager that is trying to sound really smart.
 
 
For instance this part:

Similarly, the system also requires problems/constant consumer interest in order to work. The more people who have cancer or cars that breakdown, the better the economy due to the servicing of those problems. Needless to say, this also generates an inherent disregard for human well being and the environment. Sustainability, efficiency and preservation are the enemies of this model.



The real issue would be the complete economic ignorance of that statement.


Indeed. It's known as the Broken Window Fallacy, and assumes (wrongly) that in the absence of those problems the resources would not be employed in other ways.
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2012 at 10:05
Utter rubbish.

Children trying to rule the world.
Back to Top
Smurph View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 11 2012
Location: Columbus&NYC
Status: Offline
Points: 3167
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2012 at 10:10
I'm getting pissed because I can't believe people out there think like this. These people think they're gonna change the world
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2012 at 10:17
In another active thread at the moment, some people could very well be thinking the same about you and your beliefs. It's probably best to go about thinking the people mean well, see a problem with the world, and want to better it for everyone. There's no reason to get angry at people for that really. If you don't want them to think that way, then start engaging them in debate and refuting the points that their movement makes.

Anger is best reserved for people's actions if you want to remain sane and somewhat likable.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Smurph View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 11 2012
Location: Columbus&NYC
Status: Offline
Points: 3167
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2012 at 10:25
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

In another active thread at the moment, some people could very well be thinking the same about you and your beliefs. It's probably best to go about thinking the people mean well, see a problem with the world, and want to better it for everyone. There's no reason to get angry at people for that really. If you don't want them to think that way, then start engaging them in debate and refuting the points that their movement makes.

Anger is best reserved for people's actions if you want to remain sane and somewhat likable.
 
 
 
Yea. You make a good point. Ha. I should try to be more likeable and reasonable.

I think you understand my frustrations with the whole thing, but you have a much better way of going about it. Plus, those people would never respect me for being angry about their beliefs. It's the same as someone converting someone to a religion by saying YOU'RE WRONG SCREW YOU MY GOD IS BETTER.
 
I shall take this advice for real. I'll keep all my anger and negativity in the Shred. :-D
 
 
 
I seriously feel shamed and I apologize for the anger. I'm kind of an embarassment in general. Ha


Edited by Smurph - July 25 2012 at 10:29
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2012 at 10:30
People who want to change the world by altering absolutely everything of how it works are the most dangerous.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2012 at 10:33
People who want to change the world by building armies and dropping bombs are worse I think. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2012 at 10:36
The "no money" thing always really confuses me. Does everyone just take as much as they want and we assume no scarcity? Or does some government agency ration out equal amounts of goods to people? What if I don't want one of my rationed goods (like an iPhone.) Can someone else then have two, or would that make things too unequal? If yes, then who gets it? Can I trade it for something I want, and then aren't we right back to money again? It just doesn't seem very well thought out to me.
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2012 at 10:39
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

People who want to change the world by building armies and dropping bombs are worse I think. 

The ones I talked about usually end up using armies to change the world. They just direct them to their own people.
Back to Top
clarke2001 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 14 2006
Location: Croatia
Status: Offline
Points: 4160
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2012 at 11:36
We're all fans of some zeitgeist, but I guess that's not what the OP had in mind.


My answer is no.  First and foremost, for the ridiculously dumb and generic name.

I don't mind a community which is self-resourceful and "connected" with nature, but imposing such a political agenda on community as a whole is foolish. Also, it's just a variant of anarchism, which I utterly despise.

Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2012 at 11:39
I'm starting to feel bad for the OP. Smile He started out so optimistic and eager to share. I doubt he expected to encounter such a uniformly strong negative response.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2012 at 11:47
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

People who want to change the world by building armies and dropping bombs are worse I think. 

The ones I talked about usually end up using armies to change the world. They just direct them to their own people.


True dat
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.262 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.