Freeconomy Blog
Sun
18 Jul
My verdict on Zeitgeist and The Venus Project
If I had a pound for every person who emailed me to ask me if I had heard of the Zeitgeist Movement (TZM) and The Venus Project (TVP), then we'd probably already have a home for the first experimental moneyless village. Together they are an Internet phenomenon, and millions of people have either joined TZM or watched some of their downloads, such as the excellent Zeitgeist Addendum. Those that e-mail me about this passionately ask me to join these projects, with many claiming that they hold the answers to the world's problems. I joined a long time ago, though I don't actually know what it means to be a member, except possibly a show of support.
So it is probably time I gave my opinion of both TZM and TVP, both of which seem inextricably linked, in a manner that I'm still unclear about myself. To use a completely inappropriate metaphor, my understanding is that if this vision of a future society was a business idea, then Zeitgeist would be its Marketing and PR Department, and TVP would be its R&D centre, but please correct me if I misunderstand this.
So I'll deal with both separately, but make the inevitable crossovers when necessary. Before I do, I'll state that I personally dislike reviews that are critical just for the sake of being critical, in some pretentious attempt to balance things up and make the reviewer look more intellectually superior than that which he/she reviews. If criticism is required to seek and refine the truth, then by all means things should be criticised, but only then is it wholesome. Far too much ego masquerades as criticism these days.
The Zeitgeist Movement and Films
Zeitgeist (the original movie)
It has been a while since I've seen the first movie, and from what I can remember, and from what I've read and spoke to qualified sources about, I believe there are a number of slight inaccuracies in the film. But this is so irrelevant I almost hesitate to even mention it. It is without doubt a fantastic piece of work and hugely beneficial to the viewer. And to be fair, Peter Joseph, the founder and director of the movement and movies, has never claimed to hold a monopoly on the truth, and actually states that he hopes people will not see it as such.
What the first movie does, is make the viewer question all that is around him/her, and that seems to be its only objective - not a bad objective. Truth cannot be taught, it must be realised, and Peter understands that, in the way he understands most things: very insightfully.
Yes it is controversial, and that is the point, as it raises a debate which needs to be had. It also leaves itself open to criticism by the mainstream public of being a conspiracy theorist film, especially around its views on 9/11, and many people with religious faiths will probably get very defensive about it all. None of this means that he's wrong, attacking anyone or a conspiracy theorist, however (or that many conspiracy theories aren't just actually true). It just means that the conditioned minds of the masses can't see beyond their own conditioning.
I've listened to a number of interviews with Peter and his major flaw, as I see it, is that he is about ten years too early. Most people project the past into the future in terms of society, and in doing so perpetuate the behavioural patterns of the past and show a complete lack of imagination or vision of the future.
The more I listen to him, the more admiration I have, and just from listening to him today I've heard a number of new perspectives. His interview with Alex Jones in particular (he is unfortunately a few too many years ahead of Alex also, and Alex responds to this unintentional ego attack by continuously shouting him down). Almost every single thing he says I find myself agreeing with. Almost. But I'll come to that a bit later.
Zeitgeist Addendum
An absolutely fantastic piece of documentary, and the fact I don't agree with it all doesn't make me see it as any less genius. He explains the money creation process - and the inevitable social ramifications and consequences of it - better than any I have seen before (though in its attempt to simplify it could leave itself open to criticism of being inaccurate, but it is a tough balance to find), even moreso than Paul Grignon's Money as Debt, which I also highly recommend. I explain this process in the most simplistic terms in the first chapter of The Moneyless Man, but the objectives of this documentary means that he can explain the inevitable consequences to a much greater extent than the objectives my book allowed, and for good reasons.
In it he also speaks to John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hitman, which I haven't read, but if this documentary is anything to go by, it is essential reading. It contains information I was already well aware of, but nonetheless it is fascinating to hear an insiders account of it. Peter also displays a superb knowledge of the agendas of the WTO, IMF and World Bank, and the strategies the west pursues to clandestinely and rapidly extend its economic empire, without anyone even knowing it is an empire.
But what strikes me most about Peter is not really in the films. In his few interviews, he displays a fantastic understanding of the real root causes of societal problems. He's a philosopher, and he questions everything, even the most ingrained philosophies that guide our bodies every day.
Where I do differ with him, however, is with his solution (because of what I believe are two major oversights in his thinking), which if I understand correctly is illustrated by the TVP and the works and research of Jacque Fresco, which makes up the second half of Zeitgeist Addendum. Again, if I've got this wrong, feel free to correct me.
The Venus Project
That last statement makes it sound as though I disagree with TVP in its entirety. I don't at all. In fact, I hold Jacque Fresco in the highest regard; again, he is probably far too many years ahead of his time to be properly understood by a society that tries to solve problems without looking at them systemically. His analysis of the issues, again, is spot-on. But because of a couple of major oversights, I personally don't believe in their proposed solution.
I am confident that Peter and Jacque would say that my vision promotes perceived poverty, which will then result in abhorrent behaviour in people, and I understand this perspective, and I actually find it very useful. However, that works off the assumption that what I am suggesting is poverty (Question - is poverty having very little, yet being happy with that you do - or - having more than you can ever use and still wanting more?). I would argue the exact opposite, as would people such as Tolstoy, Thoreau, Gibran, Emerson, Gandhi and Ruskin. Peter is probably correct though - the masses certainly won't agree with me or these others at this moment in history, and that is the major obstacle the Freeconomy movement is faced with at the moment.
I should note that my criticisms here are not me saying that I am right and they are wrong. It could be that I have a lack of understanding in this respect. I reiterate this only because I know how long they have been looking at the issue, and so they deserve respect. But I say it merely to add it into the mix, in a search for a solution that, if applied, would actually work and not just be a theoretical fantasy that will appease those who still want both their gadgets along with their clean air, an end to resource wars and a stable climate.
So what are these major flaws, as I understand them? For any of you who haven't watched Zeitgeist Addendum or seen the footage of TVP, it is a high technology, resource based economy and society. Much more so than that which we even have today. Except the efficiencies of the technology and energies used in TVP's vision will be much higher (by the way I am in complete agreement with both Peter and Jacque that many of these efficient technologies already exist and their application would make a massive difference in many respects), and that they will get used for the benefit of the masses, as opposed to just the richest 1% of our population.
However, I believe that in order for change to happen and to be maintained, we must first start setting the context for this change to happen within. This, I believe, can only come from a process of reconnecting people with the Earth and the people (and other species) that are affected by the processes involved in producing the things they currently consume.
In order for behavioural patterns to change, especially to the extent to which ZM and TVP desire it, people need a reason, a stimulus that is so strong and extreme in its impact that it results in a sufficiently powerful enough desire in people to change their behaviour to the required level. For example, bringing an omnivore to a modern day slaughterhouse or battery hen farm (a.k.a. factory) would have a massive impact on whether that person continues with the consumption habits they took part in before they went there.
If people were made to buy their clothes direct from the assembly line in a sweatshop, with full view of children working under military presence, then they probably wouldn't buy their garments from there anymore. Or if there were 'guided tours' of the process of making a ready meal, from the planting of a seed (by massive machines) and the spraying of the crops to its processes along the assembly lines, the sales of such meals would likely decline rapidly. That is why the extremely wide degrees of separation between the consumer and the consumed are increasingly widened (so we don't get to see these inevitable consequences), and one of the reasons why marketing departments have billion dollar budgets.
My argument is that under the vision that Peter and Jacque have, people will be so far disconnected from the things they consume to have (or maintain) any respect for them now or continuously. I also believe they will have no understanding as to why we need to change so drastically to begin with. The impulse for change, individually before collectively, will only come from a harsh exposure to the realities and the inevitable horrific consequences of the way we live today, but from whose horribleness we are currently protected from by the degrees of separation afforded to us by this tool we call money and the subsequent disconnection from that we consume.
The other major flaw I see in TVP is that the level of technology involved would require huge economies-of-scales that could only be achieved through some form of global governance, and a massive level of bureaucracy and administration (though admittedly, possibly still much less than today). How else would the team of people who make windows, for example, know how many windows to produce? This government, or planning body, would have to have some way to assess and accurately meet the needs of all the world's people, and possibly decide on the living conditions of all. In a high-technology state, most production would have to be centralised, as the materials required to make a television set, for example, would have to come from various parts of the world; each local city couldn't make its own high-tech products, which means there would need to be huge global governance, and a consensus across all the cultures, religions, nations, political systems, climates, countries of this world that this was the future. How that would come about, I've absolutely no idea.
This contradicts TVP's other objectives, which I understand are minimal (possible zero) bureaucracy and administration, and no governance.
So whilst I only disagree (for want of a better word) with both Peter and Jacque on two major points, both regarding the solution, I feel they really undermine its viability as a future solution, even theoretically. Having said that, I also have a thousand other questions about it all, most symbolically the question of who will make the machines that make the machines that make the machines?
The low-tech but completely organic society I am proposing, whilst not as attractive to the addicted masses, I believe is actually possible and not just a fantasy that looks great and will appeal to people who want to continue with their fantasies and addictions.
Walden versus TVP, I guess, as a solution.
I should also state, however, that their vision of the future, as depicted in the visuals they use in TVP, is not a place in which I personally would want to live, one in which people have little or no connection with Nature, or practical use of their own hands or bodies, factors which I feel will subsequently lead to many social, health and self esteem issues, which in turn leads to almost all the other social problems we inevitably see today.
My verdict - excellent understanding and systemic analysis, tremendous communication of the ideologies, philosophies and issues behind it, but a couple of huge oversights in their proposed vision of the future. And certainly not a vision, in its entirety, that I would ever want to see (or could see) happening, though there are also aspects about it I plan on incorporating myself.
I'd really welcome a debate about all of this. If anyone has direct contact with Peter Joseph or Jacque Fresco, feel free to put them in touch here.
Great to be sharing the planet with you all.
THE FREECONOMY BLOG is written by Mark Boyle, who has been living for 19 months without money, and is the founder of the Freeconomy Community. He is the author of The Moneyless Man.
Comment on this Post:
Trish Young comments ...
I've not seen either Zeitgeist or Zeitgeist Addendum in their entirety - however what I did not get from either was a sense of the priority of our essential connection with nature.
I have just read that "The Venus Project offers a comprehensive plan for social reclamation in which human beings, technology, and nature will be able to coexist in a long-term, sustainable state of dynamic equilibrium." I personally find the illustrations of what it would look like off putting, as though they are very high in use of resources.
There seems though to be implicit the concept of a perception of abundance for all, which I am intuitively convinced is possible, though only by a true co operation with and reverence for, all life forms on earth.
Much in agreement with what you said :
" But I say it merely to add it into the mix, in a search for a solution that, if applied, would actually work and not just be a theoretical fantasy that will appease those who still want both their gadgets along with their clean air, an end to resource wars and a stable climate."
So, the richer the mix of solutions which originate from true and holistic insight rather than disconnected intellectualisation then the richer and more lifelike the growing compound (compost, fertiliser) so to speak.
My view is that nature can show us all the solutions but we have to relearn and newly learn a caring sensitivity to it which means unlearning a lot. And very importantly allow a new perception of what our best role can be of our relationship to it.
I also think that new technologies are possible that are as yet not much understood (well not by me anyway!) or which are little publicised or may be in very early stages of development. Again. we need to change our perception and quite often suspend our belief or disbelief and be as willing as we can to accept the new and the now. Sometimes ,we need to get out of our own way to discover our way !
I'd be really interested to see the result of any dialogue you'd have with Jaque Fresco - have just found out that he is going to be in Bristol this August as part of his world tour... be brilliant if somehow you do get in touch. You"ve probably seen this link already where I got the quote and also found the tour.
http://www.thevenusproject.com/
Thanks for writing such interesting and stimulating reading, Mark.
:-)
claus comments ...
You wrote: "huge economies-of-scales that could only be achieved through some form of global governance, and a massive level of bureaucracy and administration"
As of tody, we have such a mechanism which works without a massive level of bureaucracy and administration. That mechanism goes under the name of "the market".
The theory behind "the market" is classical and neo-classical economics, both of which have as their very cornerstone an exchange mechanism which is NOT money, but utility.
This fact is extremely important to realize for all people who seek an alternative to the current money-based economy (and society).
Economic theory is NOT based on money. In stead it is based on the concept of "utility" which is the unit of measurement for something that benefits an individual or society as a whole.
That, "utility" is the very unit that all economic theory seeks to maximize. It is NOT "profits".
As an example a barter economy is fully consistant with economic theory, including moneyless living in which you exchange labour or other services for food and shelter.
Economic theory is not without unsolved problems -- it is a relatively new ara of "science" after all -- however, it does provide frameworks that are useful when contemplating how to organize exchange of goods and services in order to maximize utility for all.
claus comments ...
... I shuld at that I have no affiliation with the Venus Project or Zeitgeist movement, I didn't know they existed before I read this post. So I have no idea how they suggest to organize their "technotopia" societies which, btw. do sound like rather scary visions to me.
I am fully on your side with the notion that mankind disconnected from nature and the world at large cannot live a satisfying life (if a life at all).
Let's hope that whatever this society evolves into, that it may become part of the greater world around us, in stead of disconnected from it.
Mike comments ...
You're absolutely right that we will disrespect our products unless we somehow engage with their creation. Money separates us from the source.
As we disrespect products, we also take for granted our living time if we don't engage with the earth, the present and whatever spirituality/religion calls us. Modern technology - giving our attention to texting and the internet, etc - estranges us from the present moment and place (which is the source of many spiritualities).
Until we are free from ALL addictions (money and technology included) we will continue to compromise the happiness of others and the spirit of our selves.
Apostolos comments ...
Since I am part of the Zeitgeist Movement for more that 2 years now and i have studied deeply all that it is and what the VP offers i have only one small think to add to the amazing analysis that Mark did.
The problem with most people is the transition period that would need to take place in order to move from a monetary society to a resource based society. Until now, since i am a freeconomist my self, i have not seen any other better solution for a transition than freeconomy. If we continue to spread and scale up this effort the transition can be smooth and affective.
Thats all i had to say
Thanks
*I have made many posts about Freeconomy in the Zeitgeist Forums both the global one and the Greek ones...
matt thompson comments ...
mark i could not agree with you more about the need for people to see the places that there goods come from to help them to see the damage the consuming is doing every day. Also i have to say that as a carpenter and electrician i would never want to see a day that man no longer used his own two hands to build what he truly needed. thank you so much for the great example you provide to the world. the man from walden would be proud .
Mark Boyle comments ...
The organiser of the TED event in Porto, Portugal that I am speaking at next March has just told me that Peter Joseph is confirmed at the same event. If you're interested, go to
http://tedxoporto.com/
Sounds like a great chance to see where collaboration can happen between two movements with very similar ideals.
Kester comments ...
Thank you!
You're so spot on. I'm gonna come next time I hear of you speaking in Bristol -please make sure you announce it on fb!
Oh, and showing people the realities of the harmful inevitable consequences of their choices doesn't necessarily lead to one single answer -e.g. if you show a group of people what a US huge-scale dairy farm looks like, some people would be so horrified they'd turn vegan, and some would be determined to only buy Free Range or Freedom Food in future. For the problem you're actually pointing to, both work ok, and the theoretical arguments between them are hardly important.
BRYANTOWNSEND comments ...
Although Im sure it is helpfull to have some idea of the direction one is moving in (a vision of the future)I feel that in my experience it has been,on the whole,more beneficial on many levels to focus on the here and now..I suppose that by this i am trying to say that perhaps many of us from time to time(me included)focus too often on a place where we are not..I too have seen allot of this stuff,Im glad in many ways to be informed.I just dont wish to create an anxiety in this moment because I dont wish anxiety to become my future.
Allison Savage comments ...
I think your main objection is spot on. The connection between humankind and nature is a vital key that both TVP and TZM are missing, but I do appreciate their explanation of the fractional-reserve banking system and the fact that they're making people question the system. Excellent blog post, greatly looking forward to reading your book!
Christopher McRee comments ...
Love the blog. I think a freeconomy would really help the transition, as people do need to see where their stuff comes from, but i have issue with what to me seems like a luddite philosophy. Technology as it exists today (in the monetary system) can be sort of an addiction, with all the greatest scientists in the world being paid to come up with ... See Morethe next big gadgets. All the things that improve our lives come from science, we can't get rid of technology. The universe is ever emergent, as is technology, and we can use science to ever greater extents in the future. The barter sytem has the same propensities for control, social stratification, scarcity (real, conceived, or contrived), slavery, and all out war. It just seems like a step backward to me with the invoking of Thoreu all the time. With all that said, I love what you are doing, don't stop! Alot of people who may not agree with TVP and TZM, may agree with what you are up to. I think we are all reading the same book, just we are currently on different pages. =) we will make the world better
Peter Buckley comments ...
@Christopher.
I hear your concerns about 'Luddism', but I think it is important to remember that not everyone shares the same feelings that technological development is necessarily a good thing. The Luddites simply resisted change and wanted to protect what was traditional in their community, and eventually they were crushed by the machine.
... See MoreSince the movement of Industrialisation we have seen change of the technololgical kind which is unparalleled in history gone before us. We call it progress, but what has it actually done for us? has it changed our lives for the better, or created a society which is worse than it was before? These are the questions you need to ask, and before you talk about 'backward steps' ask yourself if it really is as good as you think, and try to be completely honest with yourself and others. :)
Steve Hough comments ...
I first found out about Zeitgeist just over a year ago which then led me onto TVP. This then led me to the Transition Towns project that has also captured many imaginations...check it out here:
http://www.transitionnetwork.org/
I think there are lots of people all thinking roughly the same ideas. Trying to do their little bit. I think they all ... See Morehelp in their own way to open the mind and make you think more about your community and the way we live. We may not all be able to go moneyless just yet but the concept is beautiful! Zeitgeist 3 is out this Autumn too!!
Another very interesting youtube video to watch is here...long winded, but very interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
Frederick Dsouza comments ...
I don't see how money economy can compete with moneyless economy.Money economy is bound to fail in this competition.Moneyless economy is an awareness as well as more practical where people do help each other. TVP and TZM is only awareness.We have ample lasting record in all forms of Good and Bad during the existence of Money system which will help... See More people in Moneyless system to never go back to Money system. Record will show there is more Problem in money-system than Moneyless system. 95% of our human life we never had money, there were problems too, hence money was created. Today with technology we can live better way without money. Human will mostly abuse and misuse money as its shown in past.
Aidydrum comments ...
Saw your post, not the comments yet (fb) and watched the movie for the 1st time last night, which melted my head (in a brilliant way). Its alot to spring on us!! ..But we'll get there, the Economic Hitman book is my next endevour. An epic adventure through learning (I personally am on), so thanks!
Cheese comments ...
Wow, I feel like such a sheep now being as a couple of months ago I asked you exactly the same question Mark. I suppose we all have to start our journey to enlightenment about other possibilities somewhere, the Zeitgeist is as good a place as any if you are willing to question and not just absorb information given to you.
The problems with TVP as far as i see it are as follows:-
- the notion of abundance for all which TVP claims to be able to provide is based on rumour and myth about what technologies are available.
- it requires universal consent and the rejection of monotheistic religion
- there must be some form of governmental control to organise what crops to grow, where and how to harness the earths energy etc, and TVP resolve this through a computer system. but this is the same problem as machines making machines, the system is open to corruption. Plus would you really want to take instructions from a machine, is that freedom?
- finally as already mentioned the technology is not sustainable, and a TZM representative in my area explained this by stating that we could get additional resources from other planets if we implemented existing technology... though it may be true it is a long way of development before it can be implemented and in that transition period they cannot provide what they claim to, and so people will suffer.
If anyone else asks you Mark I would tell them, yes i've seen the films, I have my reservations and then tell them to watch the esoteric agenda as well to strengthen their knowledge (can be streamed online for free here http://esotericagenda.net/eawatch.html).
much love man,
Cheese
MikefromPeru comments ...
Mark! I just finished reading ur book and though it was fantastic - very inspiring. I am recommending it to everyone I know. I can't believe u categorise urself as "un-talented" in the book so many times. I've been a city boy all my life and find amazing all your moneyless techniques for living, foraging, etc. Amazing! You've really made me want to learn how to do all this.
About time you gave your views on Zeitgeist! haha I got quite excited when I saw the title of your new post. I agree with what you say, people need to be shocked first to understand the urgency to change our ways... until then, i don't think many will take the leap.
Take care Mark and thanks for the article. Best of luck. I really hope to meet you soon
Cheese comments ...
@Steve Hough - Excellent video, thoroughly enjoyed it and will recommend to others.
Des Troy comments ...
I have seen the film, and I think it is a brilliant expose of how the world works. Most of the content, I already knew or suspected. What I found particularly intriguing was the section at the end which offered a solution. This was new to me and I found it refreshing. The reason being, that almost no-one offers any kind of solution to the system we have now, no-one, except 'eccentrics' like Mark here.
What excited me was the fact that the film offered an opportunity to debate solutions and alternatives. For the average consumer, the very idea that there might be another way of doing things will be a revelation. This is the most important consequence of the film as far as I can see. Western Industrialised Capitalism is not the only way. Any rhetoric that it is, is pure propaganda from those that hold the reins of power.
I won't express an opinion either way about the solutions offered in the film because I simply want people to realise there are alternatives; let's at least admit that and start the debate.
Incidentally Mark, what mode of transport are you using to get to Portugal?
Mark Boyle comments ...
@ Des Troy - as always, you seem to hit the nail on the head with your comments. I'm not sure how I am getting to Portugal yet, it will be either by bike or hitching but it depends on a few decisions I've got to make over the next month or so.
@ MikefromPeru - Trust me, if I can live without cash, anyone can! I really can't overemphasise that, so many people would be much better placed than me. But very kind of you anyway! Not sure where you live (Peru?) f you're ever around these parts, you're always welcome.
@ Cheese - great to see you critiquing this kind of material, and so well - it seems like no time ago you just started out on the path. You move quickly my friend, great to hear from you!
@ Steve Hough - yeah I'd seen that exponential video before, and thanks for the post.
@ Others - will respond at first chance, but thanks for the input and feedback.
MrVaive comments ...
I hear of this blog on facebook. I will admit right away that I am only familiar with bits and peices of the Zeitgeist movies. I also have only recently discovered the works of Fresco, and I have heard Joseph on various radio programs. I discovered some of this stuff from looking into "moneyless societies" and then "resource based societies".
I appreciate your honest critique of these ideas. Well done! I have a couple of ideas of my own, but first, I want to say a few criticisms of my own.
In looking at these points of view from these men so far, one thing stands out tremendously... The idea that a moneyless society would necessitate a sort of mass re-conditioning. I am not so sure about this, and here is why...
Someone on the facebook page had mentioned mankind's connection with his environment, or as I would prefer to call it - Reality. It is apparent to me that a man, or individual must deal with reality only on Reality's terms. If he chooses to sort of make up his own rules, he is met with nothing but failure in the application of those rules. This is because reality offers only so many possibilities to a man. Now...
In my own studies, I have come to realize that property, as man has always viewed it, is not what he thinks it is. The birth of property, it would seem, comes from man's ability to create from the material of the earth something of his own making, for his own purpose. A man may shape a stick into a spear and say, "this is my spear" and he would be correct because without his existence, that particular spear would not exist as his spear. I say this in the understanding that property, like a right, is so only as an "undeniable claim of ownership". This is why your life can be considered yours, and your right, because nobody can reasonably claim to be you other than you! The problem here is this...
While the spear, by your work in creating it, is undeniably your spear, the original stick that it was made from had no prior owner, nor did you ever have an undeniable or reasonable claim of ownership regarding it. It simply was there. All through history, the only justification (or reason for claims) for owning property has been "I was here first", "I have worked this land, so it is mine", or "I have conquered this land and am capable of defending it as mine". There never has been a reasonable justification for the original claim to ownership of anything whatsoever. - There never ever will be. -
So my contention is that the "rules of reality" would suggest that the only acceptable way for an individual to deal with reality on realities terms is to accept the fact that he is incapable of ownership, period. Nothing may belong to him, or anyone else. Now WHO it belongs to is of no concern, because aside from God, there is no earthly answer to this question. Questions that cannot be answered are not worth making assumptions for. We all know what assuming does, and not just that, but with the notion of property that has always existed, we can certainly agree that this particular assumption, that someone or anyone can be a rightful owner of property, has caused much trouble in our world of reality. No human system based on an idea of property is capable of maintaining for a relative "long-run".
If I am correct in saying that, essentially, there is no such thing as property, then this would also be a fact, or rather one of "reality's terms" of existence. This would mean, that unlike an ideology, this is not something that would need to be "pushed" as a new idea of sorts. It would not have to be something that needs to be taught to a whole world as something that should be "generally understood" and "agreed upon". It simply IS.
If you think about it, anything that simply IS, has always been the standard whether an individual or even a group chooses to recognize it. The consequences of ignoring it are always unavoidable as this is also part of the law of reality. You might say that the state of being that we find the world of people to be in is just the inevitable result of "not paying attention" to that which is true. Is really the only way for men, as a societal group, to properly function as men, to indoctrinate other men to the truth of their reality??? I think not. I think reality does its own forceful educating!
So I wanted to say this because I find it to be silly, and certainly not "ahead of their time" for a guy to believe that a moneyless society needs to be some kind of "mass reconditioning". I don't see why simply dealing with reality would necessitate a "Global understanding" or cooperative of any kind. This idea that men must finally see themselves as "one big happy, earth loving family", I am sorry, but I think it is nonsense. I see that kind of thinking leading to more digression from "Reality's Terms", especially in the sense that, yes, while men do accomplish much working in groups together, Reality should have shown us by now that man must deal with reality as an individual. Man must also deal with other men as individuals as separate but equal. The only thing that has ever made men equal is the fact that each man must deal with reality as an individual. Men are not parasites, even though they have acted as such all throughout history, but each time, this has caused nothing but failure, pain, and destruction. Men have never acted in a rational manner, which is essential to his survival, when he finds himself dependent upon other men for that same survival. It is always only by choice that he does this. It is an unwise choice, I think history would agree with me.
So anyway, there is more to that, and more where it came from. If you care to hear more, you may find me on "Philosophy" on facebook, or I will check back here. Please, I welcome any comment, rebuke, or additional input on what I have said.
Mark Boyle comments ...
@ MrVaive -
Before I start, yes you can get your local library to get it in for you, so ask there.
Thanks for a very well thought out post, it is a great contribution to the subject and I agree with much you said in it. To be honest, I think there may be a simple misunderstanding from the start though, that your commentary was founded on a false initial assumption - on the word 'reconditioning'.
I don't think Peter, Jacque or myself (though I can only speak for myself) are talking about 're-conditioning' at all, but I think if you change the 'r' to a 'd' you've got it - I speak more about de-conditioning. Small but massive difference. When we de-condition we see the world through the eyes of a child again, we see the true nature of reality. We tear away all the human concepts we've been fed from the moment we're born and we see things in reality.
Which I guess means we probably agree on this!
frantasia comments ...
@Mark
You wrote:
bringing an omnivore to a modern day slaughterhouse or battery hen farm (a.k.a. factory) would have a massive impact on whether that person continues with the consumption habits they took part in before they went there.
-----
Why do you assume that every omnivore is mindlessly consuming? It might surprise you to learn that many omnivores are mindful of the sources of their food and clothing, indeed are mindful of the way they live. It might surprise you to learn that some vegans and vegetarians eat quite a lot of processed food - and I speak of people I know here. It might surprise you that some vegans have no thought of the source of the soya and soya products they consume.
Also, your reference to the 'addicted masses' bothers me - are you planning to 'decondition' them, or do you favour having them do that for themselves?
OR - here's a radical suggestion -
Listen, speak and listen (2 listens for 1 speak) and you may be surprised that many, many people are not mindless at all. People can think for themselves, as is evident, I find, whenever a few are talking.
I believe that you're doing what you do for a good reason (though you don't believe in 'good' or 'evil' ref. your Guardian column). I believe, too, that it would pay to refer to people in a gentler way - not everybody out there is stupidly consuming, buying ready meals and clocking up airmiles all over the place. Many, many people are working very hard and doing the best THEY can to make the world a better place.
Best wishes to you and yours.
frantasia comments ...
@Mark
I used the phrase 'it would pay' without thinking (mindlessly?) - a money reference, though what I meant was : it would 'pay,' i.e. benefit in the sense that people would have more understanding of what you're about.
Good wishes.
Mark Boyle comments ...
@ frantasia
Sorry, just to clarify, when I said "bringing an omnivore to a modern day slaughterhouse or battery hen farm (a.k.a. factory) would have a massive impact on whether that person continues with the consumption habits", I meant it could change their consumption habits in relation to meat consumption, but to be fair I think that was apparent anyway. To prove this, show 'Earthlings' to your friends, and that's not anywhere nearly as powerful as real life. Many omnivores I know went vegan from it alone.
And no, I've no plans to 'de-condition' people. How could I? I offer information and a perspective, people can choose to consider it or not. And there's an assumption I don't listen to people? The only way I know of forming strong opinions about something is by listening 5 times more than you speak. Don't confuse a blog with a person - if I didn't 'speak' here there would be no blog to comment on, and my words come from study or conversations to begin with!
When I speak about the 'addicted masses', the 'masses' part infers a generalisation. Of course not everyone is mindlessly consuming, but most are - that's a fact. Otherwise, why would GDP keep rising year on year? Ready meals sales increase year on year, as are short-haul and long-haul flights, hence more and more airports open. Walk around your High St this Saturday and continue to argue this point.
So I agree, not everyone, but the overwhelming majority. It is an addiction. The alcoholic doesn't like the friend who tells them them booze is going to kill them if they don't stop. Doesn't mean they're not an alcoholic or that it won't kill them. Ego is a huge obstacle to behavioural change.
I find many of your comments tell me the same thing i.e. 'why do I feel everyone is mindlessly consuming?' Easy - the national consumption and productivity figures say it. I don't think for a second you are, or some of your friends, but we live in a very small bubble if the truth be known.
Have a good day.
Brian comments ...
Hi Mark, I hope you don't mind but I copied your blog and pasted it as a topic in the zeitgeist forum to open up discussion.
I agree with many of the aims of the Venus Project and feel that it would certainly be better than our competitive money based society. I do however reserved judgement on some of the ideas presented by the movement because i'm still unsure about their validity.
I'd be interested to hear other opinions regarding the "nature" of the human being. The ZM espouse the idea that humans are products of the environment, that our behaviours stem from the conditioning we receive from that environment. If we change our environment we change our conditioning and thus our behaviours.
From the standpoint of philosophy, this is a classic argument which has been raging for centuries. Existentialist would argue that for a human being we dont have a fixed essense or nature. Instead we create our values by the free choice of our fundamental projects. I am not seperate from the world. My very being is derived from the presence of others and to fulfill my fundamental project i depend on others. As complicated as the reasonings behind this philosophy are. Its message is simple. We are responsible for helping each other. Without others I cannot acheive my fundamental goal. As human beings our nature is very different from other things. We have consciousness. Consciousness itself is freedom. We are not deermined machine blindly following our self interest. We can choose either way. We create our own values.
In his book called "the selfish gene" Determinists like Richard Dawkins on the other hand, would argue that we are simply machines and the vehicles of our genes.
The importance of these ideas to movements like ZM form the basis of their arguments. If we are just vehicles for passing on our genes, then a competitive world with winners and losers could be the ideal enviroment for the best genes to flourish. The arguments for this idea are strong and even appear to be analogous to nature itself. Survival of the fittest is a process by which the strong survive and pass on their genes and the theory of evolution seems to be very convincing.
Unfortunately the idea that human beings are "by nature" competitive has permeated society to a point where social systems operate under this assumption. The modern predatory economics of game theory are the dominant social model. The capialist economy is the foundation of society. The sucess of these models depends on people acting purely by self interest.
For me the failures in the banking system, are all indications that human beings have a different nature than pure self interest. I believe that our struggle at present and the struggles of the past are really the struggle of these 2 ideologies played out across the planet.
What is needed is a synthesis of the 2 ideologies into a idea which unites them both. Once we can settle this argument we will be in a position to create a new society with the new ideology as its foundation.
As the philosopher Arthur Schopenhour said.
All truth goes through 3 phases
First it is ridiculed.
Then it is violently opposed.
Finally it is accepted as self evident.
Jason Palmer comments ...
I think the answer, is, to be honest, to live on an organic farm and read/write books.
That,is, as far as I can see, as good as it gets :)
Jason Palmer comments ...
I have watched the films mentioned and they are cuckoo, the confessions of an economic hitman is a good book, it shows how the USA used economic warfare during the cold war.
I am starting to the think that the solution is to do nothing, capitalism will eventually cause ecological collapse, warfare, and a much smaller world population of humans.
frantasia comments ...
Mark,
You wrote:
When I speak about the 'addicted masses', the 'masses' part infers a generalisation. Of course not everyone is mindlessly consuming, but most are - that's a fact. Otherwise, why would GDP keep rising year on year? Ready meals sales increase year on year, as are short-haul and long-haul flights, hence more and more airports open. Walk around your High St this Saturday and continue to argue this point.
So I agree, not everyone, but the overwhelming majority. It is an addiction. ...I find many of your comments tell me the same thing i.e. 'why do I feel everyone is mindlessly consuming?' Easy - the national consumption and productivity figures say it. I don't think for a second you are, or some of your friends, but we live in a very small bubble if the truth be known.
--------
Apart from my comment on 21st July 2010, I went back to January 2010 and I could find only one comment from me about ‘mindless consuming’ – it is in the comments for the blog of 13th June 2010. Here it is:
Not everyone is mindlessly buying all the time
Yet, reading your column sometimes, I get the impression* that the whole world is involved all the time in buying
Of course, correct me if I’m wrong.
However, you confirmed yourself in your response to my comment that you believe the ‘overwhelming majority’ are indeed mindless consuming. I believe there are people doing this – but they are a minority with the means to do that. Most people in the big, big middle don’t have those means, nor do they want to live in a ‘mindless’ way.
These are the people I meant when I said, Listen, Speak, Listen – they have much to say about careful and good use of money and resources. Most people work hard and are not inclined to throw away the results of that work. It’s true, among those I’ve spoken to none have done what you’ve done, but they have good ideas about the use of money and resources and I don’t find* much acknowledgement of this in your words.
*A note – I say I don’t find and I get the impression – statements of my experience of your words, not definite statements (as in there isn’t... or there is...).
Yes – I was in a big shopping centre last weekend with my daughter. Yes, we went in to several shops, looked around. Yes – we spent money – about £5, a fancy coffee for her and tea for me. Usually we don’t have tea or coffee there, but we did on that day. Yes, there were many people there but I didn’t get the impression of ‘mindless consuming.’
-----
You wrote:
The only way I know of forming strong opinions about something is by listening 5 times more than you speak. Don't confuse a blog with a person - if I didn't 'speak' here there would be no blog to comment on, and my words come from study or conversations to begin with!
-------
Glad to hear you listen 5 times before you speak – a good quality and one I’ll certainly try to put into effect in my own life. But I don’t ‘confuse a blog with a person’ and I did not in any way infer that you shouldn’t ‘speak’ on here. It's your blog after all. It's makes thought-provoking reading and I am all infavour of people doing what's right for them, as you are. I wish you well.
Good wishes.
MikefromPeru comments ...
@frantasia - I really don't think you've got the point of things... it would be helpful if you actually watched zeitgeist and zeitgeist addendum to understand the big picture on 'mindless consuming' you seem to be misinterpreting what Mark is saying. These films will set it out in a clearer way for you I think.
All the best!
Mark Boyle comments ...
@ Frantasia -
My apologies if I got it wrong about your comments and overstated it. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm in a city every week and almost everyone I see has got a bunch of bags from designer stores in each hand.
I feel your argument is based on your perception of reality, the people you meet everyday. The statistics on this speak for themselves, and the stats in my mind, are, er, mindless. A friend of mine over here, who is a doctor who specialises in more commonly understood addictions, speaks a lot about this and our current consumerism, in general, is really an addiction, of which its roots come from all manner of things emotions and cultural issues.
Where are you based by the way?
free thinker comments ...
hi i have only just got into this way of respecting the planet and would like to thank you for helping me along the way with you blog and experiment in alternate living. i already live in a caravan on company property under the guise of security while im in. i am ready to go off the grid and i can see money as slavery without our bosses having to worry about housing or feeding us and they have turned the tables on the logic so workers/slaves actually want to be tied down to debt in the vain attempt to make themselves happier. anyway i digress. i am very interested in this community you plan on building but im worried that if it gets to big, would our fake powers that be or police state take offence and drive us out by any means in their "power". i would like to thank you once again and would just like to say that tomorrow im going 3 minutes up the road to the transition heathrow to see what help i can give in return for experience in growing food etc. thanks again any info, critisism or advice would be welcome
frantasia comments ...
Mike from Peru,
Thanks for reading my comments - yes, I've seen both those films (Zeitgeist movie and Zeitgeist Addendum) and I've read and seen quite a lot about The Venus Project.
Mark,
I've seen Earthlings.
Yes, I speak and listen to people I meet, and I find many people have very interesting and well-thought-out ideas. I also read and formulate my opinions from a variety of sources. Of course, I try to remain open-minded always.
By the way, you mention that you feel my views are based on my perception of reality - do you base yours on someone else's perception? I don't think you do.
I live in Cork, Ireland.
Good wishes.
Mark Boyle comments ...
@ frantasia - to be honest, I try to base my views on facts, now my outlook. I don't even see a shop for the vast majority of my time, so if I was to go on my perception then consumerism would almost be non-existent!
But the facts tell me it isn't. One hundred years ago 50% of the average wage was spent on food. Now it is under 10%. That's not anyone's perception, that's a fact.
Paul comments ...
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=231&id=276655#277302
Frederick comments ...
Great post!
I am sick of people mentioning the venus project when there is a discussion on moneyless living/anarchist debates etc.
theoretically it contradicts its own objectives.!
Des Troy comments ...
Some interesting comments here. Most of them though, remind me of Gloria Steinem's quote;
"The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off."
robino comments ...
According to the Zeitgeist Activist Orientation Guide, the Venus Project wants to destroy all current cities, replace them with new ones ('patching is not needed'), restore family values and have engineers looking after "social evolution". In addition, the Venus project proposes a transition model towards the ideal state that is intrinsically designed to be authoritarian. Read the FAQ of the Venus Project. I don't see why people within Zeitgeist would want to agree with the ideas of a man whose head got stuck in futuristic thinking of the 50's. Are they all brainwashed, simply supid, or what's wrong? If I see the discussion page on TZM about this article I see something about people "not being forced" and so on, but in the activist orientation guide it says clearly they want to take over states and corporations and install an elite based governance model to look after the well-being of people and planet. Not really a kind of thing worth promoting. Not by showing the video, not by anything else. Think for yourself, start your own movements, abandon zeitgeist.
Jason Palmer comments ...
Professor Sunil Khilnani, author of The Idea of India, continues his journey through the ideas of Gandhi's first major work, Hind Swaraj, which argues for freedom of both self and nation but against violence. Gandhi is often thought of as a nationalist thinker but Khilnani urges us to think again. Most anti-colonial leaders sought the overthrow of white rule and the retention of the modern economy and state. Gandhi's view was precisely the opposite.
'India is being ground down not under the English heel, but under that of modern civilization', Gandhi wrote, arguing that by enslaving themselves to modern civilization, India had enslaved themselves to the British. True freedom, Swaraj, would only come, he believed, when India and individuals found a way to free themselves for the seduction of modern life.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00szr22
Trish Young comments ...
@Des Troy - great comment/quote , caused a chuckle ! Thanks !
Katie comments ...
Great post Mark, Having watched the Zeitgeist movies a few years back, I was always a little concerned about the world being controlled by a super computer... maybe I read and watched too much sci-fi growing up... I've seen Terminator, these things don't end well for the human race! I agree that a comfy high tech society where we are MORE dis-connected from nature isn't viable. But I believe humanity is slowly waking up to our connection to all things, when we do we will only take what we need and give back all that we can.
Tim Kinney comments ...
Very interesting. Thank you for summarizing your opinion of Zeitgeist and TVP. I strongly appreciate your analysis of their respective futures. As a zen buddhist I have a similar opinion to yours, but cast in my own vocabulary. You seem to be saying that the solution to the problem of mindless consumption is for people to first become aware of the cause/effects of mindless consumption. From awareness, people will naturally want to stop consuming mindlessly and will seek out a simpler, or at least more sustainable, lifestyle. As a zen buddhist, this is spot on. Violence and hatred arise out of a lack of awareness about who we are and how the world operates. Selfishness fundamentally results from not realizing that one is intimately connected with others already. However, once one becomes aware of the interdependence of people and the environment one naturally seeks a balance between the two. Once one becomes aware of unintentional violence, one naturally seeks to limit it. In my opinion, this is the key difference between the Freeconomy movement and Zeitgeist and TVP. They propose solutions without an appeal to the consciousness of the consumer. Freeconomy seems to be all about awareness and education, without proposing massive infrastructure changes. This amounts to an internal shift. We should never forget that the source of consumerism is not the "evil corporations", it is the consumers themselves who vote for the products and lifestyle by spending their dollars and pounds. We all need to realize that *we made things this way*. And we can just as easily unmake it by changing internally. But that only happens when we become aware.
I am very happy that you are working to spread awareness of these ideas. What you propose is challenging. But that makes it worth thinking about. Thank you.
Tim in Houston, Texas.
Mark Boyle comments ...
If anyone is interested in my latest article in the 'Life ... for Free' series on the Guardian, go to
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2010/jul/27/moneyless-man-party-for-free?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments
Mad Monk comments ...
"Far too much ego masquerades as criticism these days."
I think you are making far too many glib assumptions about how "most people" would change their ways if accquainted with the facts... ignoring the blatant fact that "most people" don't actually WANT to know the facts . How do you propose to force people to buy their clothes direct from the sweat shop? Or their chuk from the broiler-house? Anybody can see all this on the telly any time, anybody who wants to know, can know and choose to act according to their conscience. The people who dont want to know, dont much care anyway. Any body who does'nt want to know can not be forced... the world is not going to change drastically without some drastic events to change things...
Far too much ego masquerades as a lot of other things too, these days....e.g. altruism.
Fascist Totalitarian Demagogues are exactly that, no more and no less, whether their political garment is red, yellow, blue or green.
The worst kind of masquerading ego ignores critique totally, in particular when it is valid; "difficult" questions included: yes-men only need apply?
If the cap fits, wear it.....my two passwords?
Reserves Furey :-)
Trish Young comments ...
"Demagogy or demagoguery (Ancient Greek δημαγωγία, from δῆμος dēmos "people" and ἄγειν agein "to lead") is a strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public."
Paul McCartney said that if slaughterhouses had glass walls, no one would eat meat !
I wouldn't describe him as a demagogue of any description either.
MadMonk comments ...
@Trish Young
It doesn't really matter who said it first, or whether or not he was a demagogue: the point of my challenge is "Most people" means exactly who or what?
And if it means anything at all, "Most people" , if slaughterhouses had glass walls would simply close their eyes and shuffle on by...as they do.
Thank you for posting the definition of "Demagogue" for the benefit of the ignorant.
I might possibly define "Most people" as those who blindly follow demagogues because it saves them the trouble of thinking; and by paying lip-service, the trouble of acting as well. "Sheep", not individuals.....
MadMonk comments ...
ps @Trish Young
Having ascertained that you gleaned your definition of "demagogue" from Wikipedia; I take the liberty of adding a further extract from the same article:
What qualifies as demagogy has been the subject of debate and ambiguity since Aristophanes first used the term, in reference to Cleon.[1]
20th-century American social critic and humorist H. L. Mencken, defined a demagogue as "one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."
As George Bernard Shaw said:
But though there is no difference in this respect between the best demagogue and the worst, both of them having to present their cases equally in terms of melodrama, there is all the difference in the world between the statesman who is humbugging the people into allowing him to do the will of God, in whatever disguise it may come to him, and one who is humbugging them into furthering his personal ambition and the commercial interests of the plutocrats who own the newspapers and support him on reciprocal terms.
Daniel Diniz comments ...
I pretty much agree with you :)
I believe that a change in society is secundary, it will come naturally as soon as we all make a personal inner change.
Trish Young comments ...
I had to look up "demagogue" and found that definition , as you rightly say, on Wikipedia.
I put it on here because I think it is an inaccurate description of what Freeconomy is about.
If no one can quite agree on the meaning of the word demagogue as your quote showedthen perhaps another word would be better ?
Over the years I have known many people give up eating meat as a result of discovering the way animals are treated and killed. Likewise people who have given up buying goods that are made at great cost of the lives of the makers. And so on...
Shaw's quote is a good one.
I do not see this blog as preaching or melodramatic
but as an enthusiatic description of the experience of a life very differently lived and the philosophy behind Freeconomy.
The press jumped on this experiment as news !
I can't see how one man courageously walking his talk and describing his walk can be described as humbug.
The Moneyless Man and these blogs the tell far more about the experience and philosophy and are worth a read for clarification of both if not read so far !
Jasper comments ...
I support the war on materialism and the life driven by community, loving our neighbors, and simplicty. I support people connecting and relying on one another through sharing and giving and recieving. I support it all 100% and I myself have done 1 1/2 years of 100% gifted charity work with no money changing hands while asking nothing and recieving little in return. But you are not living without money. It takes a computer to write a blog, a server to host a website, a camera to take pictures, a factory worker to manufacture the clothes you wear, a printing machine to print your book. Tax dollars and paid construction crews to build the road and sidewalks you walk on. Whether you are paying the fees for these things or not is irrelevent - you are not living apart from money - you are totally dependent upon it and utilizing it regardless. There is no moneyless man - not even the pioneer in centuries past was a moneyless man. Not even a monk who has never had a dollar cross his fingers - the temple he lives in and the food he eats comes from donated money. There is no one alive today who is totally "out of the system" except a person who goes to live out in the wild. One can write all they want about it and do volunteer projects to attempt to get people connected and get them to reduce the extreme materialism and dependence on technolgoy gadgets which are even further disconnecting people than they already are, but when it comes down to it, it is way better to do that when we have a JOB that pays MONEY. If not, then we are at best a person who struggles to conform and to function in the mainstream, and at worst, a deadbeat leeching off society.
Jonothon comments ...
The Venus Project is an inspiring concept, I agree. But, Jacques Fresco, I don't trust him at all. To me, he is the architect of the New World. Freemansory is all about architecture perfection and Jacques Fresco certainly fits this mould. Plus, there are too many men through out 'history', with white beards, which I associate with he NWO. The likes of Noah (New World Architect), Biblical God (The all powerful), Moses (Writer of the rules) Father Christmas (encouraging greed), The Architect from the Matrix (Builder of the Matrix and enslaver of humankind), plus others.
MadMonk comments ...
@Trish Young
You are simply, not getting the point, like "most people"....
@Jasper?
Not: You are diamond, clearer, harder and more precious
@Daniel Diniz
Quite so, Thank You. Makes no difference in the slightest whether money or no money, communism, liberalism, activism or passivism religion, atheist, god or goddess; any system: thisism, thatism or the otherism whatsoever will ultimately fail with a radical realignment of interior values from sub-human through human to transcendent.
"Love thy neighbour as thyself; ( and love That from which your being sprang)- in this is All of the Law and all of the prophets!"
MadMonk comments ...
Just notice a typo on my last post: should of course read : "thisism, thatism or the otherism whatsoever will ultimately fail withOUT a radical realignment of interior values from sub-human through human to transcendent."
Trish Young comments ...
And love has in its wake compassion, tolerance, gentleness, truth and empathy. These are only truly possible as the ego is transcended and courage is present. And when any one becomes clear enough to see what is. A life time's task as I see it.
Change from within as you observe.
Thus enabling those qualities and some I may well have missed , to come down to earth - literally.
Particularly now, most particularly now.
"And by their effects shall you know them" is one of my favourites.
That is really all I have to say on this now.
Mad Monk comments ...
@Trish Young et al.
Exactly, I am glad we agree on something ....although I repeat, you have missed the point.
I have a great deal to say on the subject, but no wish to hijack Mark's blog, therefore I shall refrain from challenging your latest waffle.
May I also say that I do use my Freeconomy name to comment here and do not hide behind an untraceable pseudonym: anybody who wishes to enter into a rigorous debate or compare notes with me is welcome...:-)
Trish Young comments ...
@MadMonk
Perhaps less condescending would be more effective ?
There's a tone here which really doesn't ring true to a person concerned primarily with "a radical realignment of interior values from sub-human through human to transcendent."
A sort of carping sarcasm, edginess and presumption of a greater understanding than others on here.
I am sure your viewpoint is interesting but would, for me anyway, make much more interesting reading if accompanied by respect for the reader and even a little humility. To understand and communicate with the intellect is not at all the same as understanding and communicating from the heart. As I am sure you understand.
Glad to see you show some respect for Mark's blog though , even if not exactly (apparently) for what he is doing.
Would it not be a good idea to present your point very clearly, which may then be of interest to all ?
Trish Young comments ...
"anybody who wishes to enter into a rigorous debate or compare notes with me is welcome...:-)"
There's a forum on here also....
Mad Monk comments ...
@Trish Young :
Once again, you miss (or evade) the point. I HAVE said all I have to say; finish, finito, terminus.
THE END! 'Byeeeee!
Trish Young comments ...
Thanks then.
Also to say that quite often people put their e mails/links to own websites or blogs here which gives everyone the opportunity to see views which may be off thread of any particular blog but which none the less are complimentary.
Freeconomy aims is to link people to others in their locality - people who live further afield can communicate here or through the forum if they wish.
MadMonk comments ...
@ Trish Young
Complimentary? Like I said, Only Yes-men need apply....
MY views, as it happens, are complementary and your arrogance in presuming to psychoanalyse me on the basis of a few comments is simply breathtaking; and I suggest to you that what you say of me is nothing less than a projection and reflection of your own psyche.
If Mark cannot stand for himself without your impassioned semi-rational, uncomprehending knee-jerk defence then he can not stand for much.
MY two words? Boomeranged Firths
yujiao comments ...
The leadership can be called as hierarchy and consensus. Employee can have different opinion with his/her boss. And when he/she got different ideas, he/she can go all the way up to the boss and discuss the problem. This is a good thing usually company may explore all the potentials of its employees, because sometime the gucci salesubordinates may have the better&nb sp;idea of the business.
Eko comments ...
I am trying to walk the free world, obviously it's not so easy if I want to travel or do things quickly at instant will...but if i slow down and appreciate the real things instead of the 'entertainment' based modern complex material world then I find it so much easier. I have several trees which are providing me free fruit and am growing as much as I am allowed on the land available to me legally, but then am I. We all own the world, the only bits bought and paid for by individuals are the bits we are not allowed into. I could cultivate crops randomly and hope ppl would respect my planting, this has not been the case already, but then that was in the middle of suburbia so what do you expect as ppl just don't have that connection with food as they once did. I think Mark, and Freeconomists should take heart from the FACT that out of the 6 Billion ppl on the face of the planet, most of them are poor and farm for a living. Think about it, how can all the ppl on less than$1 a day buy anything? they can't so they must farm somehow or someone does it for them at very low cost. This means society has not gone past the point where MOST ppl are capitalistically minded, most of us are still working hard to live and enjoy what we have, it is mealy the perception of the few ppl in capitalistic society areas that the world has lost it's roots. If the collapse of world food structure as it is heading happens, then the ppl who are considered most at risk right now will be the ppl in the best position to carry on. Perhaps this is the greatest natural disaster yet to come...Money makes ppl not have to trust each other or share unless we want to. Therefore those ppl who rely on money as their tool for ease of living have lost their ability to trust each other and the world in which they live. You will also find these ppl tend to have no desire to discuss or even contemplate helping with the very fabric of life, growing and maintaining food/water supplies. I understand that the Zeitgeist movement is based on super technology, but it also highlights simple local DCE (De-centralised Energy) which is based on very simple forms of material like magnets, basically rocks which have energy inside them...all we have to do is harness this natural clean stable power source in a way which is efficient...if we all tried it would work, but our role is to do ONE job and accept that money will bail our lack of knowledge out and over our lives we may be lucky enough to understand it all, by which time it would be too late to use as we would be physically inept. If we were all dynamic day by day minute by minute, life would appear disjointed, but I am sure it would be simpler as our minds would be less bored and thus need less entertaining and new materials...We all have to pay tax in money, but imagine if we all had to produce x amount of food each week, which would be the better, more sustainable system...you can't eat money and survive as far as I am aware, you could eat the fruit from the tree it may be made from, but not the finalised money article...When I support my local farm, they give me food for free so money is unnecessary...once we start to give (the kindness offensive) then we shall find what we need, not what we want...our minds can think of anything if we give them enough time, that's artistic talent, but we also know how to avoid danger, so why don't we avoid the ppl feeding off our backs and laughing at our toils...it's because of money...the ppl in the "third/developing" world are light years ahead of us as they still have their land left, how much land, as individuals, do we own in the monetary world? Not much...Money gives ppl the option to be lazy and make other work for them...it's simple really, and the final point is that Zeitgeist is a moneyless method too, simply ppl have to WANT to HELP each other and by implementing this method we will stop the rot of desire due to ppl having what they need when they need it...
hoatzinsprout comments ...
This blog is great but i'm a little confused why the link you give to The Moneyless Man goes to Amazon, where you have to pay £8.16 to get the book - maybe a link to the Library in Tucson, Arizona would be more appropriate... :) By the way, it's available from the library in Bath, UK
xky comments ...
Im so reassured that there is an itelligent thinking person out there doing this and putting that point across....i have tried and those venus supporters get a little irrate by critical thinkers. xky
Mike Y comments ...
The Venus Project et al look like versions of hell to me. These people want to force people (read fascists) in to everyone being equal. Equality isn't about forcing everyone to be equal! Just as democracy isn't about forcing other countries to be democratic.
The best solution even better than yours is to keep the current system but to limit rich people to only have 1 million pounds in the bank. All their money above this must be invested in community or socially benefiting projects. This system is the perfect hybrid which is still compatible with the human condition that includes greed. Greed exists and people hungry for ego trips and power exist... so why not go with it? If people want ego trips by knowing they've invested a huge amount of money in to community projects then so be it... however their ego trip benefits many! So it's a win win compatible with human nature. Your system is only compatible with the 1% of people who are morally superior to others.
comments ...
I thought the readers of this blog might be interested to know that Jacque Fresco and Roxanne Meadows, part of the Venus Project who are advocated by the Zeitgeist Movement, will be traveling to Bristol (UK), to give a presentation about "The Venus Project" as part of their world tour.
For more information about the event and to book tickets, please go to:
http://thevpinbristol.eventbrite.com/
Regards,
MJ
throbgoblins comments ...
I rewatched the film recently and all through the first half was delighted with it. But as soon as TVP stuff started I felt an enormous sense of dissapointment, as though the entire film had been sabotaged by a loon. I felt that the Venus Project stuff undermined the credibility of the initial analysis, which is a great shame.
WurmD comments ...
Mark, right from the bat: thank you for everything!
Now, I'm very happy to read you blog entry and realize that your 2 main objections seem to be misunderstandings :D (I'll just address one below).
"TVP would require huge economies-of-scales that could only be achieved through some form of global governance, and a massive level of bureaucracy and administration. How else would the team of people who make windows, for example, know how many windows to produce? This government, or planning body, would have to have some way to assess and accurately meet the needs of all the world's people"
No governance :), no bureaucracy, no administration. Only math.
IF
the world's people agree with setting the ultimate goal of society as "survival of the species", and comes to the conclusion that the best way to achieve that goal is maximum sustainability and efficiency,
THEN
there is only ONE optimal, global solution to each technical question.
I.e., only one optimal solution to which vegetables should be planted in such plot of land, given that land's constitution and exposure to the elements.
"How many windows should be produced?" - Trend analysis on people requesting windows. Industry today already does it to determine how much windows in stock they need.
And in this global open world, the trend analysis would be performed with all the world's data.
Which in math, more data, means better results. All data, means best, optimal results ^_^.
No bureaucracy, no administration per se, only access to information and lots of computer power.
Can you visualize how this is NOT a computer telling us what to do. Instead is doing what is done today: 'In an industry, using a computer program to compute how much and of what should be produced'; But MORE :D with MORE data (all) and bigger computers, and after a few test runs to gain confidence that the same program is still good, turning it to automatic (connecting the trend analysis program, to the automated production plant [already existent], to automated delivering tubes).
Nathan Maas comments ...
I think this was a tremendously well-written piece and I appreciate that you made clear that you had questions, as opposed to the typical critical assault out of ignorance we so often get in our society.
As a member of TZM / TVP, I have also thought about these things, worrying that mass-technology will divorce us from something vital to our survival: the natural world.
But I am not worried. Here's why:
1.) Nothing is mandatory in the proposed solution. The solution is not the cities, or the technology, but instead the adoption of the scientific method for society. If something isn't working, it's changed to benefit all. Experimentation is critical. One-size-fits-all is impossible in a scientific environment.
Given this, I believe there would be tremendously more diversity in the way people live, as compared to today, with almost all of it being in direct connection with the natural world and it's processes. Everyone would have access to helping grow food, and would almost surely make use of such access. A society that encourages curiosity is a healthy society, for both man and the world. We live in a scared, sick, un-questioning time, which leads people to fall into apathy about where they're food comes from, etc.
2.) Just because the proposed cities utilize technology does not mean they aren't incredibly more "natural" than our present society. They are built considering the surrounding environment. You won't see hillsides stripped or forests cleared. Those things happen because the profit motive does not allow time nor motivation to find a better solution.
3.) The Venus Project does not propose an end-all be-all solution. They only propose a methodology for a healthy, evolving society. It's the ability to change we currently lack. And when the betterment of humanity is the true goal, you can bet that nature will be priority number one, for the sole reason that man can't exist alone.
- Nathan Maas
Gunnar comments ...
Wow. Impressive and precisely worded analysis, Mark. Many well-crafted comments as well. A lot I'd like to respond to.
But I'm going to try to keep it short and address the "disconnect from nature" aspect of your entry. First of all I think we would both agree that the disconnect is detrimental to our well-being and that the bigger the disconnect, the bigger the detriment. That said, both the Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project repeatedly emphasize the RELEVANCE (forgive the caps, can we pretend they're italics?) of balance with nature, understanding natural processes, adhering to the laws of nature, sustainability, and on and on and on. TZM and TVP also repeatedly point to the importance of a RELEVANT education. Under TVP paradigm, school/education would be entirely different: designed to spread understanding of the way the system works and all the facets of how society is connected to the earth, not to... well.. do I even need to say anything about schools now?
I guess what it boils down to is that, while a greater disconnect from nature would exist under TVP paradigm than under the paradigm you advocate, there likewise exists a greater disconnect the way most of us are living today than there would in TVP.
I would also argue that if two societies are EQUALLY disconnected from nature, but one society, say, obtained its clothing via sweatshops and the other via automated factory, the DETRIMENT of the EQUAL disconnect would be GREATER for the sweatshop society. If sound, this logic can be applied to many areas when comparing TVP with the world as is.
I found this thread via TZM forum thread about it. Glad I did. I plan on exploring the site thoroughly and looking into your book. Keep up the good work! Thanks!
Oh! Very excited to hear about you and PJ speaking at the same TED event! I hope you two get a chance to talk! I'm sure he holds/will hold you in as high regard as you hold him.
So much for short..
Kostas Malakasis comments ...
Hi Mark, happy to hear your critical response on ZM/TVP.
I've been a member of the ZM for about 2 years now. I think you need to read
more material related to a RBE.
I will attempt to give you some insight on your objections.
A lot of people can change if they are exposed to the appropriate information.
This is how it happened to myself as well (being a victim of culture and having materialistic values).
In the education of the future, people will be educated to their connection to nature
and it will be a hands-on-learning experience. They will also be educated on the process of how the advance society works.
In terms of connection to Nature, have you had a look on the designs of Jacque?
The main page of the thevenusproject.com site has some new city designs to look at.
Additionally, people will not necessarily leave in a city. If they wanted to, they could
leave in the outskirts. The TVP research center in Florida actually shows how life
in the outskirts could be like (They even grow some of their food amongst others)
In regards to centralization and decision making in terms of production some centralization would exist. You cannot have an automated robotics factory in your backyard. But I see more decentralization in some areas gradually coming.
First one is energy. Others could come through 3D printing and eventually nanotechnology and molecular manufacturing.
As Dario(WurmD) said, statistics and trend analysis would be used to determine the adjustment of production. Bureaucracy does not exist. If you want to get a rough view of the cybernated system that Jacque talks about have a look at that:
http://www.planetaryskin.org/resources/videos
As for reaching consensus between some nations at first (other nations I think will simply follow), that's an indirect aim of the ZM through the social awareness that it will bring about.
P.S.: A member of the ZM can be more than a simple supporter.
He/She can be part of various teams that each local chapter has (e.g. Linguistic Team)
sagey comments ...
The ZM do not correspond well with members and the 9/11 story that they try to portray is a total load of crap and should be labelled with a warning: 'much of this film is speculative, has been proved wrong, and we apologise for being mis-leading' x
Peter comments ...
Haven't the Amish and Mennonites been practicing your solution the whole time?
Indreba comments ...
I SO MUCH AGREE with you Mark, you have put my thoughts into words and very eloquently too, thanks!
We all need to change within before we can hope to change a society we are part of, or we will repeat the same mistakes based on ego and self.