Zeitgeist and Venus Project debunked!

[Mick Bynes]

 

Who here has watched this wonderful video that debunks TZM and TVP?

[Etnannarac]

I did and I thought it was a great video!

[Mick Bynes]

It is an absolutely excellent video that goes into great detail about how Zeitgeist and the Venus Project do not work well at all.  I like how he explains about scarcity and then of course he reminds us that resources are not infinite.  He explains it well.

[FriendlyHacker]

Voluntary exchange using money, means it makes both parties better off, is this how it happens in practice?

 

Have you seen people voluntary exchange air, sun-rays, snow in the north pole, sand in the desert or salt water in the ocean? Why trying to sell ice-cream on the North Pole is a running joke about something impractical?

 

Why this specific species of monkey cares so much about property, and makes that a fundamental basis of survival, when the other animals have done very well so far without inventing money?

 

 

These questions might sound funny, but I seriously do want to know.

[Kevin Beal]

Voluntary exchange using money, means it makes both parties better off, is this how it happens in practice?

 

The people could be acting against their own well-being, but the act itself necessarily implies that they believe they will benefit. We could come up with some scenarios where one person was sleep walking (sleep trading?) or that he was forced to trade with a gun at his back or that the person was simply wrong that it would be beneficial. But it's the actual action itself that we are looking at. It's a praxeological fact. Human Action by Mises is actually an incredibly interesting read (or listen, it's free online).

 

We could ask if it's immoral to murder a guy (obviously being against his will), and after you say yes, then reveal that the guy was running at you with a chainsaw or something. The context doesn't actually matter for the basic truth that it's immoral to murder people to be true. It's implied necessarily by the act itself (given a rational theory of ethics).

[ThatAtheistPlace]

I also enjoyed the video very much.  I think Kevin answered FriendlyHacker's question regarding 'leaving parties better off' very well.  As for this question:

 

Why this specific species of monkey cares so much about property, and makes that a fundamental basis of survival, when the other animals have done very well so far without inventing money?

 

If you don't mind me taking a stab at it, I'd venture to say that all primates care about property.  The more complex the animal, the more territorial they are.  Silverback gorillas fight for territory and female monkeys trade the currency of mating rights for the safety of a harem.  These are crucial to their survival.  Humans take it to a more civilized extreme, but it's pretty much the same thing, in my opinion.

 

I think that to act as if we have risen so far above our primitive instincts is to be intentionally obtuse.

[Hannibal]

 when the other animals have done very well so far without inventing money?

 

 

I think you answered your own question there. Animals. 

I don't know about you, but I'm more than an animal.

[ThatAtheistPlace]

Homo Sapiens are animals by definition.  Can you help me explore your line of thinking on that?  How are we not animals?  Why is that a derogatory thing to be?

[Kevin Beal]

Homo Sapiens are animals by definition.  Can you help me explore your line of thinking on that?  How are we not animals?  Why is that a derogatory thing to be?

 

I can't speak for Hannibal, but I'm sure he would agree that we are animals.

 

I would say though that we are very different from all other animals in a way that (I think) is especially unique. For example, dogs can think about how they are going to chase a squirrel and then go do it, but (as far as I know) they lack the ability to reflect on themselves thinking about how they are going to chase that squirrel. I believe the same is true for non-human primates as well, although I'm certainly no expert. Crows are even more intelligent than chimpanzees in some regards, like their ability to recognize patterns that may as well be logical deduction.

 

Humans are also the only animals that have a true language, that unlike dancing bees, hooting owls and mimicking parakeets, humans can actually invent new uses of a language and create new ones in order to communicate something (even programming languages).

 

We also have philosophy, science, ethics and all other kinds of relatively abstract capacities.

 

We do of course share 99% of the same DNA as chimpanzees and are built of almost entirely the same biological systems. We respond in many of the same ways to different things that other animals do albeit in a more sophisticated manner. We can be territorial, lustful, raging, violent etc and those things aren't necessarily bad or lesser or unimportant, but we are a whole other kind of animal.

 

I obviously don't think that we are all gods children made in his image, or whatever other mystical explanation people had in ancient times, but I think that their intuition that we are fundamentally different was right. Our morality, free will and superior consciousness are awesome.

 

Maybe it's my human bias, but I think that if there is such a thing as a superior species, it is humans.

 

Would you not agree?

[ThatAtheistPlace]

I would certainly agree that we are different, with advanced brain structuring and whatnot.  I do have a problem with glib superiority for something that is just chance for us.  It seems that being in an evolutionarily progressive position makes us discount other species.  Starts to sound similar to the young earthers who don't believe in evolution cuz we ain't kin to no monkeys.

 

We have this thing called Universally Preferable Behavior, which applies to absolutely every living creature.  I feel it's fair to say that it is against UPB to neglect a dog, or for a child to hit, or even for a lion to kill a gazelle.  As cognoscente adult human beings, we are held responsible for when we act in opposition to UPB.  It's like you said, Kevin.  As humans, we differ because we have the ability to apply morality to these actions.  We have awareness.

 

Since we are responsible parties, I would deduce that we also shouldn't aggress against those with less mental capacity.  For instance, we would teach a child it's wrong to hit and why.  We would attempt to remove a dog from a neglectful home.  We understand that the act of killing is wrong, but that in nature it's simply necessary for many species' survival.

 

With that being said, it just feels to me that to claim superiority over other animals is a tad pretentious toward them, when knowing what we know should make us more protective of them.

 

Does that make sense?  Not sure if I'm doing a good job of explaining myself or why I feel kind of icky when reading comments like that.

[Kevin Beal]

Since we are responsible parties, I would deduce that we also shouldn't aggress against those with less mental capacity.  For instance, we would teach a child it's wrong to hit and why.  We would attempt to remove a dog from a neglectful home.  We understand that the act of killing is wrong, but that in nature it's simply necessary for many species' survival.

 

With that being said, it just feels to me that to claim superiority over other animals is a tad pretentious toward them, when knowing what we know should make us more protective of them.

How is that not just another way of saying that we are superior?

 

I also don't think it's fair to describe my post as "pretentious" or expressing some "glib superiority".

 

I have nothing against animals, and don't want them to get hurt, but I do care a lot more about my fellow human beings than I do say an ant, or even a dog. I don't think this is some baseless bias on my part, or some form of anti non-human animal bigotry either.

 

 

Here's the definition of "superior" that google provides:

 

 

 

Higher in rank, status, or quality. Further above or out; higher in position.

 

And by your own admission humans are this in the ways that I described. The kinds of things that elicit my admiration, respect and love.

 

I don't know why my post made you feel icky, but I will confess some irritation on my side.

[ThatAtheistPlace]

I can understand you irritation, for sure, as I should have clarified that what made me feel icky specifically was reading Hannibal's statement "I don't know about you, but I'm more than an animal."  I'm just so used to that kind of thing being followed up by "if we come from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" lolAlso, I did use language with negative connotations... pretentious, glib, etc... I do apologize for that and I can see that could contribute to your irritation, as well.  I'll also concede that as human beings, we are mentally superior, undoubtedly.  You are right.Let me try to better explain where my consternation lies.  My personal understanding of UPB, beyond the basics, is that once a living creature moves beyond pure instinct (an amoeba engulfing a protozoa or a pitcher plant dissolving a fly) we are more able to attribute a level of correctness to their actions.  For instance, if bacterium kills a man, it's not wrong or right (it would do that no matter what); if a lion kills a man, the lion is wrong, but not morally responsible (you can train a lion not to kill); If a man kills a man, it is wrong and he is morally responsible.On the flip side it would seem that the more a living creature ascends up this scale of awareness of action, the more it is processed as being wrong to perform morally repugnant acts against them.  Especially by an equal or more highly culpable creature.Is that gelling?  I'll do some more thinking on this.  I appreciate that this thread has opened this train of thought for me, and apologies for riding a tangent so far away from the original post.  :-p

[Phuein]

Being familiar with Zeitgeist, I just don't see how this video "debunks" it. This guy pretty much repeats what Stefan already said, previously, in his videos. I feel this guy missed the point of creating a critique. He actually just made a sort of review.

 

I strictly support Stefan's view, and the anarchistic view in general, because I prefer freedom of choice, over anyone else's "good ideas". Still, I have yet to hear a practical answer to evident issues, such as the success of the military industrial complex, sex-slave trade and addictive drug trade, in our world. I do agree, however, that there are some interesting ideas out there - like DRO's, and that the gov' and coercion can never resolve these issues. This does not mean that current an-cap idealistic solutions are viable, nor that the Zeitgeist ideas are any less so.

 

Just because I want my freedom, doesn't mean I am in the right. I accept that our free choice is often harmful to ourselves and to others. Anyone who is not able to accept unasked-for assistance, from time to time, ends up miserable.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Voluntary exchange using money, means it makes both parties better off, is this how it happens in practice?

 

Have you seen people voluntary exchange air, sun-rays, snow in the north pole, sand in the desert or salt water in the ocean? Why trying to sell ice-cream on the North Pole is a running joke about something impractical?

 

Why this specific species of monkey cares so much about property, and makes that a fundamental basis of survival, when the other animals have done very well so far without inventing money?

 

 

These questions might sound funny, but I seriously do want to know.

I don't think it's been argued that both parties are better off in that sense. Both parties are better off in terms of their desires being satisfied. That people may make choices that are bad for them is another point.

How have other animals "done very well"? 

[Mick Bynes]

If you liked that video and are interested in another video that debunks TZM and TVP.  Watch this one.

 

[kirk paolinelli]

Why this specific species of monkey cares so much about property, and makes that a fundamental basis of survival, when the other animals have done very well so far without inventing money?These questions might sound funny, but I seriously do want to know.

Who said property was the fundamental basis of the survival of the human species? I think humans have survived for a lot of years without private property. As far as animals doing very well without private property. I would encourage one to live with monkeys, I've seen some of the nature shows where people living with animals not what most would call the good life. 

I also enjoyed the video very much.  I think Kevin answered FriendlyHacker's question regarding 'leaving parties better off' very well.  As for this question:  If you don't mind me taking a stab at it, I'd venture to say that all primates care about property.  The more complex the animal, the more territorial they are.  Silverback gorillas fight for territory and female monkeys trade the currency of mating rights for the safety of a harem.  These are crucial to their survival.  Humans take it to a more civilized extreme, but it's pretty much the same thing, in my opinion. I think that to act as if we have risen so far above our primitive instincts is to be intentionally obtuse.

  I agree with you completely that animals are territorial. But I don't necessarily agree that the more complex the more territorial. I guess it would depend on how you would describe it. I definite think you see animals protect their property. A rooster will definitely try to his flock from small predators and other roosters. Birds defend their nest. My dog is constantly marking his territory.What makes us different from the rest of the animal kingdom is a tough question, and I have know idea. We are animals as described by biology. We know it comes from the larger brain. I think Stefan had stated before it was our ability to create concepts. Which doesn't seem like a lot, but I guess it's similar toHaving all the atoms needed to create a cell(a bunch of trees) and having an actual working cell(the concept of a forest).In this way, it seems we are a mile apart.

[Guest darkskyabove]

I don't think it's been argued that both parties are better off in that sense. Both parties are better off in terms of their desires being satisfied. That people may make choices that are bad for them is another point.

How have other animals "done very well"? 

 

A better way of saying it might be: "both parties are better off in terms of 'having the freedom to decide how their desires are being satisfied.'"

[Livemike]

Voluntary exchange using money, means it makes both parties better off, is this how it happens in practice?

 

Have you seen people voluntary exchange air, sun-rays, snow in the north pole, sand in the desert or salt water in the ocean? Why trying to sell ice-cream on the North Pole is a running joke about something impractical?

 

Why this specific species of monkey cares so much about property, and makes that a fundamental basis of survival, when the other animals have done very well so far without inventing money?

 

 

These questions might sound funny, but I seriously do want to know.

 

Voluntary exchange, with or without money, means that each person expects to be better off.  Generally that expectation will be met.  The reason H. Sapiens is more concerned with property is because we have more durable things.  We create things that take long enough to produce and/or last long enough that preserving access to them is very important.  Other animals are concerned with "their" stuff to a much lesser extent because they either don't have much or they don't keep it long enough to make developing a complex theory of property worthwhile.  

[Armitage]

"Debunking" debunked 

 

Conflating FM with the state: A problem of a current system, not a fair argument against ancap. Face it, the govt with monopoly on violence is the best investment a capitalist can have, only he ceases to be a capitalist (or worse, continues to be) and becomes a fascist. 

However, if we only have ancap, no state, I must wonder if we ever end up in a dystopian cyberpunk future of nation-corporation-franchises fighting each other for vital digital information and control over human livestock. Of course, ancap says corporations will have no special protection besides the individuals involved. Well then, I wonder how big industrial concentrations of wealth, responsibility (and thus power) can possibly be managed in order to produce the hi-tech we see today. Except through large-scale automation. Unless of course Stefan is even more right than he thought...

 

 

Creating resources through claiming previously unclaimed goods:

I consider this practice historically obsolete and dishonest, compared to the idea of automated global resource sharing through Resource-Based Economy. Earth has rights too (Bolivia says) and we are basically thieves and parasites on Earth. We steal from Earth and once technology makes that easy, it also becomes obvious. Nothing wrong with that, but we might as well be honest thieves and share the resources, not claiming we "create" anything. 

"Objectively verifiable borders?" Ha ha ha! That's a government oxymoron. read the history of America. Invaders (colonists) stole the land and then made laws saying, "don't steal".

 

 

The "voluntary" trade of I value A more than B... (where A can be, beside a chocolate bar, my staying alive a little longer)

Answer is perhaps this

 

 

 

The magical allocation algorithm hoax

 

 

 

The planned obsolescence critique 

I believe the planned obsolescence is an example of evolution. People used to make high quality things, but tried to lower the production costs, so they made them a bit less quality, and people didn't stop buying them even if they didn't last so long... And after a few decades most things were cheap and didn't last long and now there's not much to choose from at any reasonable price. Military and cosmic engineering still keeps making things top quality, because unlike people, cosmic bodies aren't falling for a cheap crap.

 

The top quality production of goods in TVP is not there for people's preferences, it is there for Earth's preference. If something can last longer, it must last longer, so it stays around and saves energy for recycling. If things are designed easy to dismantle by machines and recycle, then resources are never lost.

 

The infinite resources and scarcity argument

I am getting irritated by such a unwise question. We only talk of scarcity, because we use physical resources as a market fetish to move money around and money are the ultimate goal. We do not set any actual goals. Our preference is culturally manipulated to prefer money and you can never have enough money apparently, so the logical need is to move around infinite amount of resources. According to Ingacio Ramonet, the editor of Le Monde, world economies generate annually 73 times money of all GDP of national economies of the world. According to Zeitgeist, only 5 % of money supply today serves to buy and sell goods and services. So someone here is missing the big picture. Our current system of goal-setting is completely insane and does not permit us to achieve the infinity, which nobody would even want in real world. Real goals have a real cost, the most expensive goal of all is the infinity.

 

The problem is even more complex. TVP does not use personal preferences to assess human benefit, it uses the Capability approach of Manfred Max-Neef and Amartya Sen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtEK1-zjdME 

 

As for the infinite human needs dogma...

[PatrickC]

Its always complex for the left... Pity they never make sense of those complexities and learn from their mistakes.

[Armitage]

Its always complex for the left... Pity they never make sense of those complexities and learn from their mistakes.

Well, I love complexity and I don't like restricting it... But when you look at it, Resource-Based economy is very simple and we live in it every day.

Here's a cartoon I haven't used yet, I hope you like it 

 

 

 

[PatrickC]

No, it's leftist nonsense.. Complexity is when you are building the next Ferrari.

[Armitage]

No, it's leftist nonsense.. Complexity is when you are building the next Ferrari.

I did not say I am a leftist, or any kind of ist. Hallucination much? At least don't practice message board nudism (naked assertions). 

[Wesley]

I did not say I am a leftist, or any kind of ist. Hallucination much? At least don't practice message board nudism (naked assertions). 

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is generally good to assume it is a duck.

[Armitage]

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is generally good to assume it is a duck.

Generally yes, but making assumptions means missing the most thoughtful people, who try their best to rise above all isms. You have some very interesting people in your signature and they come closer to my real identity than mere leftism.

[PatrickC]

First (unwritten) rule of the Leftist, deny everything and then claim your arguments as self-evident and common sense.

 

However, I hear you Armitage, you probably don't consider yourself as one. But all your arguments have so far, amounted to your average Leftist rhetoric.

[Armitage]

First (unwritten) rule of the Leftist, deny everything and then claim your arguments as self-evident and common sense.

 

However, I hear you Armitage, you probably don't consider yourself as one. But all your arguments have so far, amounted to your average Leftist rhetoric.

That's what I was about to do! 

I am driven to supply the missing element, whatever it happens to be. If that's rightist forum, then leftism. If atheistic forum, spirituality. If Christian forum, then atheism. If sociological forum, then technological game-changers. If I meet socialists, I tell them of the Austrian school and Roger Douglas reforms. If I meet Libertarians, I tell them of The Venus Project. And I've got a fair education for each of these. Nobody has the whole truth, we must synthesize or stagnate. The history is full of intelligent people with ideologies who apply them way too broadly. 

 

 

My habitus is leftist, but my mind is universal. I see everything from so many points of view, that people don't believe me I understand them, because they can't follow me. That's because I don't follow a single truth, I follow them all. 

 

 

And back to the topic. I am convinced that The Venus Project is not leftist or rightist, it's a holistic socio-economic system. If you're into Philosophy 101, science is a practical application of noetics and noetics is provable, thus science is provable and can not be classified as ideology, or ism. TVP is merely a practical application of science on socio-economic problems and so it's not an ism either. It of course has a collective aspect, because science is a collective effort and its results tend to be universally functional across all collectives. When we have a scientifically proven best way to do something, there's no reason to be all right-wing individualistic and each different just to prove how much freedom we have. That's either stupidity or a scientific experiment, depends if you're keeping notes.

 

Contrary to the popular belief, it's not a centralized economy. It's an industrial network much like the current price system, only more coordinated and structured. Fresco speaks of central processing of information (correlation center), but that's just a glorified phone exchange and can probably be run in a distributed way on computers worldwide as a P2P computing, like Bitcoin client or research processing clients. TVP is not centralized, it's standardized. Lego block is standardized, so is English and C#. Standardization opens way to creativity and global combination of ideas. A standard must be wisely, centrally scientifically decided, but after that, it's a great help for all individualists. Users don't care what language was used to write their GUI or what mm gauge does their plumbing have. But TVP and Earth cares and people should too, standardization opens way to mass production and mass production means whittling down the costs so much that for all practical purposes the product is "free", as far as average citizen is concerned, or within renewal/recycling rate of resources. Standardized technology is not uniform, machines like 3D printers and Wikipedia of design model database should satisfy even the fashion freaks. Anyone interested in a product will learn how is it made and may thus make products of his own, or even whole industrial projects, if based on survey of popular demand and empirical evidence of efficiency.

 

I have long thought of what TVP might be in terms of isms, capital-ism, social-ism, commun-ism, nope... I believe TVP is an organism. Nothing else fits. Organism is a system that combines input, output, a few kinds of circuits and networks, hierarchy and subsidiarity in some sense, and somewhat of a fractal structure (repetition in combination on various levels). Organism has curious properties of circulation, homeostasis, regrowth, modularity, and a whole unit reproduction. Organs and cells in organism do not compete with each other, they cooperate and share resources freely on demand, without market or trade. Smaller cells can and do destroy or sacrifice themselves, but the structure is always maintained.

An organism has a privileged self-aware symbiotic class of lives (brain cells, as humans) served by obedient mindless cells and organs (automated industry). Also, an organism has a tiny, non-sentient and automated "government" controlling heart rate and bowel movements, in our body it's cerebellum, that's our equivalent of Corcen. 

 

This is why TVP is a project of "organism" in broadest sense of systems theory. It is not centralized, competitive, collectivist nor homogeneous economy. TVP uses a "Wikipedia economy" and weapons of mass creation. Coming to think of it like that, it really is quite self-evident and based on common sense, as leftists would say  . But it took me a long time to see it. Now I can say, it's not much different from how people manage their household, from inner company economy, not different from how our body works and it even resembles some aspects of military logistics. I'd call it an educating anarchy of the educated. An educated anarchist obeys nothing but the empirical necessity that has not yet been defeated through technology. 

[PatrickC]

My habitus is leftist, but my mind is universal. I see everything from so many points of view, that people don't believe me I understand them, because they can't follow me. That's because I don't follow a single truth, I follow them all.

 

Then you are a relativist, the worst kind of Leftist.

[Armitage]

Then you are a relativist, the worst kind of Leftist.

Hell, no! Relativism is a modern plague! My docent on philosophy 101 taught me to refute relativism as one of the first things. The relativism would be denying any kind of development, please leave me out of that.

I don't know of an absolute truth, but I believe there is an absolute direction towards a still greater truth. I believe in individual and collective development of consciousness. (however I believe that natural darwinistic evolution has probably no direction in itself, it just has to be good enough to get us by, we can improve it in the future through genetics) 

Yet I believe there are truths to be found almost everywhere, because the development must be rounded out, in many areas, or there will be a great failure. For example, we are highly developed technologically, but very much behind economically (globally said), ethically, socially and so on. We need a holistic understanding of the world to develop in an absolute progressive direction in every area. 

[PatrickC]

You know Armitage, you've been here for 4 days old chap and you have not once made a coherent argument.. I have no idea what you are here for, because it isn't changing anyone's mind that I can see. That's my last olive branch to this nonsense.

[Armitage]

You know Armitage, you've been here for 4 days old chap and you have not once made a coherent argument.. I have no idea what you are here for, because it isn't changing anyone's mind that I can see. That's my last olive branch to this nonsense.

I'm here mainly because of Stefan and what I see as one Stefan's problem. If I can explain stuff to him, he can explain stuff to you. Most of people here benefit from him greatly, rather than vice versa, so he's the obvious choice. I trust in Stefan, because he is actively broadcasting on large scale and the video is an evidence that he does his best to think for himself and work on his flaws. Obviously, most people don't broadcast, so he's the priority.

[ThatAtheistPlace]

Sooo.....  why don't you just e-mail him?

[Armitage]

Sooo.....  why don't you just e-mail him?

Do you mean e-mail that I will call in for the Sunday debate? Yes, it's about time I do that.

Otherwise, is it realistic to carry an e-mail conversation with him? Many podcast hosts just don't have time. Debate on podcast is much more effective. 

But where should I start? Should I defend TVP as the real alternative to capitalism, so that Stef is not so threatened if I criticize capitalism, which he sees as the only viable and moral form of economy?

[Wesley]

Do you mean e-mail that I will call in for the Sunday debate? Yes, it's about time I do that.

Otherwise, is it realistic to carry an e-mail conversation with him? Many podcast hosts just don't have time. Debate on podcast is much more effective. 

But where should I start? Should I defend TVP as the real alternative to capitalism, so that Stef is not so threatened if I criticize capitalism, which he sees as the only viable and moral form of economy?

He would not feel personally threatened. The goal is to be correct, not to win or have attachment to conclusions.

 

E-mail Mike at [email protected] to schedule a date. The show is being quite popular and I think they are scheduling into early December so you can prepare your arguments and research Stef's.

 

Also, occasionally a person or two do not show up. So if you just hang out towards the start of a show, you occasionally can get in if there are open spaces. However, it is generally better to schedule as you will be guaranteed a slot.

[anarcho-science-dude]

To anyone who knows the answers to the following

 

Can you please post some links to the actual technical solutions proposed by the Zeitgeist Movement RBE? I'm asking for technical details not general paragraph length descriptions. If you can't do that, i.e. provide links, it's likely you're just following an empty cult-like movement. Sorry if you're offended by the "cult-like" reference; didn't mean it as an actual cult but a movement that subsists on spreading false hope to it's followers kind of like the "hopey changey" Obama cult.