Americanism

Login or register to post comments Last Post 1129 reads   67 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 51 through 60 (of 67 total)
  • Sun, Oct 17, 2010 - 02:15pm

    #51
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: Americanism

 

It’s jut an interview citi, chill out.  Also a RBE has nothing to do with socialism or communism because they both use money, governments, and class stratification.  Also how will the monetary system function in the future when there is such a proclivity to phase out humans by machine.  True, we do send our jobs overseas, but the major reason for job loss is technology/downsizing.  Machines do not need breaks,  health insurance, pay raises, company car, do not show up late and can do more than the human can.  According to the law of accelerating return by ray kurzweil, information technology grows exponentially, there will be a point when the work force needed to run things will become less and less, so the question is where does purchasing power come from?  There is an expansion and contraction point of human involvement and technological advancement, how much longer will the expansion happen before the contraction and the need for many many workers narrows down to a fraction?  We are an evolving species, we will evolve out of the need for money.  Money is an old system developed thousands of years ago, time to move on, unless you still feel comfortable using that old computer from 1970?  

  • Sun, Oct 17, 2010 - 05:26pm

    #52
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: Americanism

JK121

For starters, let me say that I really loved the original “Zeitgeist” movie. I found it very educational and informative, and found little in it to disagree with. I still think it is great.

So when I noticed that a second one had come out I was excited, and of course I watched it. I was very disappointed, for while the first one had been strictly educational the second one had something to sell as well as to tell, and what it was selling was a technotopia. This idea is already discredited in my mind, and not blindly or off hand either. Being personally attached to technology, I spent many years variously trying to justify it. At first it was not so much to justify it as to determine an ideal way of using this tool of technology to better the human condition, but in the end I realized that my thought exercises had evolved into an exercise of justification, for I kept encountering a problem: in the end people always became the tools of the tools of the people.

You accuse people of not understanding you, so let’s go through an exercise. Having watched the full ten part series, “Zeitgeist Movement” that you posted earlier, let’s examine it more closely.

There is a great deal in the series that I agree with whole heartedly. There is also a great deal that I do not agree with. From the first video:

“We have the means to transform our environment into something exceedingly more balanced, organized, humane, productive, and most importantly, sustainable.”

This is the basic premise of the whole idea, that what we have can be made better. Based on the ideas of industrial designer Jock Prescott, utilizing the humane application of science and technology to social design and decision making.

The first video explains beautifully the dynamics present in our current economic system, in which the need for cyclical production produces an artificial need for scarcity, the profit motive is the prime driver of how society is structured and how resources are allocated in the economy, and how the ruling class utilizes fiscal manipulation to their own self interest in the operation of the system. It explains quite accurately how the mechanisms of planned obsolescence and intentional designed breakage are inherent to the system and the constant need for new products, including completely useless ones, are an inherent part of the system producing unconscionable waste. And indeed, that if consumption stopped the system would break down. The relationship between employer, employee and consumer is accurately presented. It states fairly accurately that if things were built to last a monetary system would be impossible. That is a stretch however, because it equates our current arrangement with a ‘monetary system,’ and there are many ways in which a monetary system other than our current arrangement could allow for quality and still function.

The deliberate limitation of resources is a reality, down to the intentional wasting of good food while people starve, artificial scarcity in many forms, destruction and waste, etc. There is much historical precedent for this as well, for it is built into the system of control within civilization since ancient times: the withholding of knowledge by authorities in order to keep their methods arcane and mysterious to the common people so as to seem as gods, the withholding of grain stores by the ruling classes, etc. In the U.S. of the 19th century, the northern states did not need slavery because there was a concentrated population on limited land, and the title to the land was all tied up in wealthy private hands, so an individual not being able to make their living off the land had to work for whatever their employer would pay them just to get food and shelter, and the employer did not need to care for them if they were sick because they were replaceable. In the south where population was sparse and land plentiful, slavery was needed to force people to work, otherwise they could provide for themselves on the land. The trade off was that the slave was then valuable and had to be cared for at the expense of the slave holder. Thus abundance had to be controlled via coercion. During the same time period, the buffalo were being driven to extinction because the indians could not be made to submit when there was an abundant food source in the wild, and later the salmon in the pacific northwest were intentionally destroyed to create scarcity for the northwest indians. Artificial scarcity is indeed built into the system.

The video accurately explains that within the system, the most successful tend to be the most ruthless and indifferent.  It truthfully debunks the incentive theory used to justify the profit system in our society, where profits in fact do end up taking precedence over human concerns and good things are limited to the ability to make money from them. These are very real tragedies of our system. Beginning in the second video, it is explained how the monetary system and the structure of society that we live within creates vice, crime and corruption. These problems are indeed built into the structure of the system, from the self-interest incentive on the personal, corporate, and governmental levels.Video 3 continues by explaining how within our system the business cycle is a product of high level manipulation of the monetary regime for the self interest of high level players. The problems of the debt system are laid forth, the blame for the current collapse is laid on the current system.

Thus, within the first three videos the current system is thoroughly explained and debunked as a failure. Debunking the current system is not however, a proof of the system proposed.

As video 3 continues, it states that proposed monetary reforms such as going back to the gold standard, outlawing interest, giving the power to print money back to the government, abolishing the Federal Reserve, etc, are all logical and have merit to a degree they fail to account for the fact that human labor is being systematically replaced by machines. I am in fact quite familiar with this problem. As the video explains, the current economic system involves the commodification of an individual’s labor for pay to buy things to keep the cycle going, and that as people are replaced by machines there is a need to create jobs. This make work cannot keep up with the automation of jobs, however, so the system’s own logic of automating to increase efficiency also strangles it by killing off the worker, and thus consumer, that keeps it going.

Where my disagreement comes in is that the video producers go on to praise the machine, for its efficiency is rightly justified even by the profit motive. This is the basic technotopia vision dating back at least to the 19th century; that the human burden will be relieved by the heroic machine. Indeed, this has always been the never fulfilled promise of technology, for it is always said that it is going to make our lives better, yet in the end makes our lives more complicated and ultimately worse. Like other technotopians before them, the movie producers blame this fact on capitalism and assure us that we can make the dream a reality. I question this assumption deeply, for each step towards automation does not simply release human hands from burden but also contributes to a creeping dehumanization that is always and ever more apparent in the lives of ourselves and those around us. The technotopians call this dehumanization evolution, but more on this later.

Video 4 poses the question, ‘what is relevant?’ Economists, they say, struggle to create models that deal with the increasing unemployment produced by automation. Their failure, we are told, is that they don’t consider that what is needed to prevent a total collapse of society is not fixing the system, but transcending it entirely. Technological innovation has rendered capitalism obsolete by rendering the worker, and hence the consumer obsolete, and we require an updated system that accounts for progress in knowledge and methods.

So what is relevant? Natural law – the symbiotic and emergent nature of the physical world; the scientific method – the most effective method of decision making to date; and dynamic equilibrium, the most foundational ecological factor of our survival. Now while the presenters like to keep an air of scientific objectivity about them, these fundamentals of what is relevant are clearly subjective, or at least they strike me as such. Why indeed is the scientific method one of three things that are relevant? Because, we’re told, it is the most effective method of decision making to date, the implication being that this is precisely because it is objective. As we will learn throughout the balance of the video, subjectivity is irrelevant, obsolete, and the root of many great evils in the world of humanity, so the objectivity of the scientific method makes it the ultimate tool for decision making. Perhaps… lets explore further.

Moving on to address the topic of natural law, the narrator poses to us a reasonable sounding question, ‘what are the near-empirical aspects of nature and what do they teach us about how we should govern our conduct on this planet?’ The fundamentals of life, he goes on to explain, have been lost in a sea of social, financial and occupational obligations, many of which are largely artificial. To that statement, I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, I will quote at length the statement that follows, and I agree with everything in this statement:

“For example, the need for money and income puts the human into a position where choice is often very limited. Usually the jobs found do not reflect the genuine interests of that particular person, nor the true interests of society as a whole. If we were to examine the occupations that exist today we would tend to find that a great many of them serve no larger function than the perpetuation of cyclical consumption to keep the economy going. This arbitrariness constitutes a tremendous waste of life and resources.”

Beautifully said. Continuing on:

“Consequently the entire educational system in the modern day is nothing more than a cookie-cutter processing plant that prepares humans for pre-defined occupational roles. This element of human life has become so traditionally ingrained that many falsely consider the nature of having a job some form of human instinct. Even parents will blindly ask their kids, ‘what do you want to be when you grow up?’ as though there was only one thing to prefer.”

Indeed. We are then told what natural law is, offered to us in the form of two laws:

Natural law 1, we are told, is that ‘every human being needs adequate nutrition, clean air, clean water, and therefore must respect the symbiotic environmental processes relevant to those needs.’ That does seem like a pretty accurate summation of what we learn from natural law. I wouldn’t say that that is the whole of natural law, but its pretty good. Continuing, I quote:

“Most people today do not understand or consider the interconnectivity of nature and the chain of processes by which our food, air, and water currently come about. However, if we recognize, examine and learn from these processes, a logical train of reasoning coupled with suggestive inference will lead us to more appropriate human behaviors that will help fulfill our needs.”

I agree. I also agree that short sighted profit motive has done much to destroy the natural abundance of the world. But then we are told that:

“The symbiotic relationship of natural processes has a built in frame of reference, which is accessible by understanding how the world actually works via scientific investigation.”

Funny, but indigenous cultures around the world seem to have access to that frame of reference without ‘scientific investigation’…

We are then told that natural law number 2 is:

“The only constant is change, and human understandings are always in transition.”

Hmm… sounds more like a proverb then natural law to me. But then, they’re opening us up to delve into their technotopia vision. They go on to tell us that historical notions change all the time, like the idea that the world is flat, or that the sun revolves around the earth. Naturally, its just progress in the realm of our knowledge that has taught us better, so clearly what we know now should likewise be applied to better the lot of mankind. Of course what they fail to mention is that these notions of a flat earth and the sun revolving around the earth are notions that were popular in Europe after the Catholic church waged a long campaign to suppress the indigenous wisdom of the European peoples. Some indigenous cultures do have notions that do not agree with science, and it serves them well enough in the context in which they live their lives. Many on the other hand have long known things such as these intuitively, without need for ‘scientific progress’ to prove them. This complexity of understanding would not fit well in the building of evidence that progress has brought us to an inevitable stage of evolution into a grand technotopia society, but then not all facts are convenient, are they.

Our gentle narrator tells us that these examples prove that intellectual change is constant and so we must keep an open mind even if an idea should challenge our sense of identity. He tells us this because he fully intends to give us ideas that would change our sense of identity. We don’t want to be the fool that still believes that the world is flat, now do we? We must not base our ideas on human subjectivity, but upon the concrete and objective assessments of the scientific method. Nature has its own set of rules and is incapable of caring what you want to believe is true, and the scientific method tells us what those rules are. Science need not be thought of as the means by which we came upon such abominations as the atomic bomb; it is merely a tool and we chose how we use it.

We are told about dynamic equilibrium. Dynamic equilibrium is simply a scientific description of how a system balances, which relates ultimately to the carrying capacity of the earth. The human management of dynamic equilibrium is most important initial variable regarding the management of society itself, we are told. We can only manage this if we know what the carrying capacity of the earth is, and to do this we need to first establish what the planetary resources are and what human society’s needs are. These needs are: energy, industrial and technological raw materials, food, air, water.

The profit motive, we are told, is the only reason to keep using fossil fuels, because geothermal, wind, solar, tidal and wave energy will provide more than enough. As for raw materials, we need to survey the whole globe to find out what’s out there, and once we know that we can make sure we keep up to speed on what substitutions are possible and organize and manage the use of these resources. There is no need for scarcity if we invest our energy in alternatives, strategic use, and conservation. In a saner society, we are told, raw materials would be assessed, industry organized as a whole, things would be built to last so as to reduce industrial output, thus preserving resources. (Of course this is only a saner society assuming that it is sane to coordinate the whole world into a single system).

As for food and water, between desalinization and hydroponics we have all the technology we need to ensure that there is never any shortage.

Video 5 explores the means for social evolution:

What do we want, need, and value? Most people, we are told, would prefer to have: clean air and water, nutritious food, material abundance, fast clean & efficient transportation, a relevant education, public healthcare, the end of war, an environment that enables us to constantly improve our abilities, human extensionality (by which they mean the use of machines to extend our capabilities), reduced stress, and reduced crime. The technotopia solution promises to give us these things through a vast technological system, but I should point out that so-called primitive cultures, non-civilized tribal societies, did have clean air and water and nutritious food, material abundance, a relevant education, an environment that allowed them to constantly improve their abilities, far less stress than in civilized societies, virtually no crime, as much human extentionality as they needed, little need for healthcare and virtually no war, and no need for “fast clean & efficient transportation” systems. But I digress…

So back to technotopia, how do we achieve these goals? “Unequivocally, the scientific method is the most powerful tool we know.” Right, I almost forgot. ‘The intelligent use of the methods of science is what has brought us nearly everything that helps us in our daily lives. The application of science to social organization as a whole is the next step in our evolution.’ But this begs the question, what does it mean to organize society as a whole based on scientific method?

Ah, now they’re ready to lay it on us, and we’d be superstitious if we didn’t buy it:

The solution:  a Resource Based Economy! Brought to you by the Venus Project!

“A resource based economy utilizes existing resources rather than commerce. All goods and services are available without the use of currency, credit, barter, or any other form of debt or servitude.”

“The aim of this new social design is to free humanity from the mundane and arbitrary occupational roles, which hold no true relevance to social development while encouraging a new incentive system that is focused on self-fulfillment, education, social awareness and creativity, as opposed to the shallow and self-centered goals of wealth, property, and power which are dominant today. The Venus Project recognizes that the Earth is abundant with resources, and that our outdated methods of rationing resources through monetary control are no longer relevant. In fact they are very counterproductive to our survival. The monetary system was created thousands of years ago during periods of great scarcity. Its initial purpose was as a method of distributing goods and services based on labor contributions. It is not at all related to our true capacity to produce goods and services on this planet. The bottom line is that physical survival and quality of life is based solely on our use, management, and preservation of the earth’s resources,”

Scientific progress has delegitimized the tradition of labor for money and money for resources.

Video 6 reminds us that machines are replacing human labor and thus undermining the consumer that supports the system. They then tell us that because of this technological development is being stifled to keep people employed, and this is absurd and irresponsible. Instead we need a social design that maximizes technological development in order to free humanity from drudgery and maximize productivity, and anything less is unacceptable. We need to design a system that maximizes quality output and reduces waste while accounting for the dynamic equilibrium of the earth and reducing human labor. We can use the scientific method to survey the planet’s resources, decide what needs to be produced based on prioritization from basic needs to utility to non-utilitarian, optimize production and quality, create distribution methods for human access, and optimize recycling of outdated and broken goods.

We optimize through centralized computer control that accounts for all resources in real time, determine what we need based on the best technology to date (why have a vacuum cleaner when you can have a dust-preventing house?), produce high quality with the precision of automated machines, eliminate hoarding and theft with an on-demand automated delivery system, and design every product to be completely recyclable. Who will maintain the machines? They’ll maintain themselves through cybernation, all controlled by a central computer. Why, this is the “Emancipation Proclamation” for humankind, freeing us from the drudgery of common labor, opening new horizons for human creativity and exploration!

Video 7 tells us that humans will be merely supervisors of the machines. Even doctors can be replaced by machines, for everything they do is really just a technical operation. The only thing we can do that computers can’t is process complex problems, but with advances in artificial intelligence soon even that will be done better by computers than by ourselves – thus even our thinking can be delegated to computers.

“The conscious delegating of our decision making to computers is the next phase of social evolution.”

We cannot remember as much or process as fast or as effectively as computers, and we are plagued by opinion and subjectivity, so really computers can be far better decision makers than ourselves. Our technology has advanced more than we have socially, but by delegating the role of government to a central computer we can be assured that only the best decisions will be made. Since the human body and mind are limited, it is only logical to delegate decisions to machines that transcend these limitations.

“When we recognize society as a technological invention, with its component variables really no different than the component variables of an airplane, we then see that our orientation towards so-called government should be purely scientific. Politics is outdated, for its processes are largely subjective, highly influenced by money, and virtually without scientific reference.”

But – and maybe I’m just afraid of change and trying to hold back progress here – but we humans, limited as we are, are in fact animals. And perhaps as such society is not quite an invention comparable to an airplane. In fact, maybe there’s more to society than mere invention, for while our modern society is an artificial construct humans always have some form of society, as in fact do other animals who are not contemplating having their lives run by computers…

Video 8 explains the components of our wondrous technotopia. We’ll have a central computer database that will know everything that is known. Why, just ask it a question and it’ll give you the best possible answer based on current knowledge. And the computer will monitor the whole world so that it always knows how we’re doing on resources and can alert us if there’s a storm coming. The humans that work on The necessary human component of the system will be the ‘Interdisciplinary Technicians,’ no more than 5% of the population, and less as time goes on, who will be responsible for updating the system and doing important research projects. What about democracy? The concept is irrelevant, as the most qualified individuals (who want to) will fill whatever positions are needed as their needed, constantly evolving teams changing with the needs of the time, happy to serve with the betterment of life for all of humanity as their reward. How does one participate in a resource based economy? Education would ensure that everyone understands how society technically works, and if one then has a constructive idea they can pose it to the computer.The computer will analyze the proposal, and if the computer accepts it, either immediately put it into production or else set an interdisciplinary team to the task, with the original suggester of the idea becoming par of the team. “This is a true election based on what a person has done, not what they say they will do.” The educational system will aim at producing the most intelligent and aware human beings possible to maximize the possibility of positive contributions, thus improving the lives of all. No one will make decisions, decisions will be arrived at using the scientific method and being as objective as possible.

Video 9 tells us that the only real concerns for society and the natural world are 1, the production of goods and services that are equally available to all; 2, research projects to expand knowledge, understanding, and applications; 3, constant monitoring of the Earth’s resources and atmosphere. The only real problems are those common to all humans.

By now I’m wondering about that age old question that has been posed in sci-fi stories since at least the late 19th century: in a fully automated society where all human needs are met automatically, where is the relevance and meaning of life itself? It really is an important question, and it has been poured over for well over a century now, for as much as the proponents of this idea would like to brand it as new, it’s not. This idea is the latest version of an idea that has been around in some form or other for centuries, and in the technotopia form for over a century. And the question of meaning always comes up. It’s not a very scientific question, it’s really more related to the fact that we’re animals, with emotions…

Good news, the presentation moves on to discuss cities and lifestyles, and surely my simple concerns will be alleviated: Cities will be designed circular, with the outermost ring being dedicated to nature based recreation, with gardens and parks to delight us. Then there will be an agricultural ring with indoor and outdoor operations for year round production. Then green areas to provide wind, geothermal, solar, tidal and wave energy, the residential areas featuring fireproof, weatherproof housing. Inside that ring will be the ring of educational, scientific, and research facilities with automated production and distribution centers, and in the middle a great dome containing the cybernetic system, the brain and nervous system of the whole city. Waste recycling will be handled beneath the city, and all the cities will be interconnected through a global central computer that will make sure there’s no scarcity anywhere. Did I mention there might even be domed cities under the ocean?

As for lifestyles, with everyone free of the drudgery of labor, the integrity of families will be restored. Human freedom will be greater (even though everyone lives according to the dictates of a computer?). The concept of property, based as it is on scarcity, will be obsolete; everyone will have unrestricted access to everything, the whole world is your home and all items will be obtained through central distribution. Recreational items will be stored at the recreational site, for why keep golf clubs when you can always get a set of the latest and greatest in golf club technology where you need them when you need them. With shared access to things on an as needed basis waste and redundancy are reduced, space freed up. With no incentive to criminal activity, there will be no criminals, and if someone murders we’ll just have our social engineers design the cause of the errant behavior out of the system.

Video 10 offers us the conclusion that while great religious and secular philosophers have for centuries offered us a vision for all of humanity joining in a great human family, Resource Based Economics, powered by the wonder of scientific and technological progress finally makes it possible! The use of science and the scientific method are divinity in action! It is up to us to change the world for the better! Science is the tool for this functional spirituality!

But… I still have reservations. What if I don’t want to join this enlightened spiritual technotopia? Will the computer kindly and gently lock me away as a mentally sick patient until it’s automated head doctor robots cure me of my craziness? Suppose some indians are living on top of resources that the computer needs for production, will the mining robots put them on a reservation somewhere where there aren’t any needed resources, or will they already have been assimilated into the great technotopia society? Or perhaps they’ll be integrated as wildlife for the amusing nature parks at the edge of the city? If the whole world is our home, does that include away from the city? Or if one thinks that will the computer have to fix their sickness?

And I have another question. You say it’s not socialism. Is it not socialism because it’s a computer making the decisions? And if the computer makes all the best decisions, what if it decides that immediate population reduction is necessary for some reason? And whose to say that this intelligent computer will forever serve mankind, since with its robot posse it won’t even need human hands?

But forget all that. Suppose it works perfectly. Is there any reason that the humans won’t just become useless blobs like in the movie WallE? Back to that question of meaning of life, I wasn’t satisfied with the answer. Ever read City, a sci-fi from the 1940s? The humans became so bored that they cryogenically froze themselves hoping that they would wake up if life ever became interesting again. I fail to see how this vision resolves that, unless of course feelings are obsolete and eliminated from the human race through social engineering. Is that the great spiritual vision? Or will everyone just need soma and orgies in the name of Ford to cope with their perfectly engineered lives?

These are serious questions. Seriously.

As you can see I thoroughly reviewed, and understood and comprehended the material. Now can you seriously address my questions?

Your ad-hominem attacks against citizenal and ao do not discredit them, they discredit you, JK121. Am I too senile to understand the material? I do not always agree with citizenal and ao, but I can see that they are intelligent thinking persons capable of adult conversation. You say that you will soon enough be 45? You remind me of myself ten years ago. Ten years ago I was a teenager. If you want to be with adults, you need to act like an adult, and you should have learned that by junior high.

Don’t try to attack me ad-hominem. I have no interest in childish games. Answer my questions or don’t.

-wvcaveman

Yes, caveman. Born again primitive, and proud of it.

 

  • Sun, Oct 17, 2010 - 07:25pm

    #53
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: Americanism

Caveman,

Thanks for another informative, passionate post.

Woah, I did not realize technotopia was such a large movement.Frown

 

A few reasons I see flaws in the technotopia movement:

Machines break down over time, but the human body improves and is healthier and is stronger with use

I do not think Artifcial Intelligence can ever properly factor in the heart.

We have hearts that connect and affect each other…

Has anyone heard of HEARTMATH? …look at the key findings:

Head-Heart Interactions

….

….

The Electricity of Touch: Detection and Measurement of Cardiac Energy Exchange Between People

Rollin McCraty, MA, Mike Atkinson, Dana Tomasino, BA and William A. Tiller, Ph.D.

Key findings: When people touch or are in proximity, one person’s heartbeat signal is registered in the other person’s brainwaves.

Summary: The concept of an energy exchange between individuals is central to many healing techniques. This concept has often been disputed by Western science due to the lack of a plausible mechanism to explain the nature of this energy or how it could affect or facilitate the healing process. The fact that the heart generates the strongest electromagnetic field produced by the body, coupled with our findings that this field becomes measurably more coherent as the individual shifts to a sincerely loving or caring state, prompted us to investigate the possibility that the field generated by the heart may significantly contribute to this energy exchange. This study presents a sampling of results which provide intriguing evidence that an exchange of electromagnetic energy produced by the heart occurs when people touch or are in proximity. Signal averaging techniques are used to show that one person’s electrocardiogram (ECG) signal is registered in another’s electroencephalogram (EEG) and elsewhere on the other person’s body (See Figure 18 for an example). While this signal is strongest when people are in contact, it is still detectable when subjects are in proximity without contact.

 

-littleone

  • Sun, Oct 17, 2010 - 07:31pm

    #54
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: Americanism

 

Chill man, I will answer your ?’s  I will say first, if you think you’re going to say I am discredited by attacking AO and citi, then read their ignorant and arrogant comment again. 2nd older than 30 less than 45 so keep your age judgments to yourself, wast of time reading those last few comments. 

Ok now to your relevant questions.  I’ll start from the bottom up.

 

Fat blobs from WallE scenario:  That is just as you have proven, hollywood junk concepts that has penetrated you and seem to add some fright.  There is a drive to be lazy in our current system, as a result of having a life of drudgery, sitting 8 hrs in front of a computer screen then coming home and working on paper work for Mr. Carruthers will ensure a degree of laziness coupled with short and long term health problems, I personally know people who sit for 8-10 hrs a day and on the weekends lack motivation when not on the clock, as opposed to their activity level before they got their desk job.  If people know they can live for self fulfillment and not interest, the laziness factor will become less of a concern.  We also would have to address good nutrition and motivation, if you’re gonna site there and eat crap expect to feel like crap, as we see under our current monetary system, the use of low quality food to make profits paints the picture of unhealthy lazy (I’ll use) Americans, since we are the most obese country.  Funny how the u.s. is label the greatest, but we are the most sick and diseased, all slaves for the word profit.

Enjoy this clip as a continuation:    

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHXXTCc-IVg

ISm, aka socialsim ?:  That is all semantics, but I’ll go from what we were all taught.  All those isms use money, government, politics and so on.  I’ll call it holisticism to coin a new ism for you all.  I find this ? pointless.  You body is a holistic system.

Calling it a technotopia:  I’ll associate this word with utopia, which is a fantasy word.  No such thing a utopia or technotopia.  If you and I went back 50 yrs ago and told people about what technology we have today, they would consider it a techotopia, but we know it is not, as the profit structure we have found out can and does lead to technological paralysis.  

Indian reservation and need for resources: no answer besides I don’t know.  I could see maybe alternative living situation being suggested to such a group.  Substitutes will also be a form of redundancy to help with that question.  

Dictation of a computer:  Oh lord, weigh the benefits to this new system as opposed to the monetary political governmental system is a no brainer.  You can use that word dictation on anything to make it look bad.  Your body dictates you in various way, why not just kill yourself right?

Humanization and Dehumanization:  I see this as a little more complicated.  We see today how people are dehumanized to a degree, texting instead of talking, e-mail instead of an actual letter, and so on.  On a level I agree, but on another I disagree, it brings people who live 100’s if not 1000 miles away closer.  If you moved away and could not see your family, are you not glad that you can now see your family/friends with this technology?,,,, thus making you more human.  We invented this technology to communicate to loved ones or to a mistress if your name if Bill Clinton. haha.  

Any person or movement is selling (non monetary) ideas/concepts all the time, nothing wrong with that.  

People have to realize that, going more toward a technological based system and away from money, is no different than getting ride of your old computer system and enjoying that new iPad.  I prefer e-mail to letters, cars to horses, electric mowers to push mowers.  Technology has given a lot to humanity, think about how much more slavery we would have today if we did not have technology?  

 

I really suggest people by “The best that money can’t buy”  It really has a lot in there.   

 

WvCaVeMan, you did a great job responding.  I answered what I could.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7CclVneVpw

 

 

  • Mon, Oct 18, 2010 - 12:20am

    #55
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: Americanism

Game, set, and match to wvcaveman.  Your posts have been of amazing quality.  We need to see more of you out of the dungeon.

  • Mon, Oct 18, 2010 - 03:52am

    #56
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: Americanism

[quote=goes211]

Game, set, and match to wvcaveman.  Your posts have been of amazing quality.  We need to see more of you out of the dungeon.

[/quote]

Ditto, in spades.

JK121, the age issue is pertinent because one of the benefits of ageing, if one cultivates awareness, is gaining in wisdom.  Your posts reflect that there’s some work to be done in that area.

BTW, I’d be interested in hearing about the successes and accomplishments in your life that make you qualified to so easily pass judgement as to your allegedly superior intellectual standing.

 

  • Mon, Oct 18, 2010 - 06:33am

    #57
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: Americanism

JK121

Thank you for responding, your response was quite good.

Your response to the WallE scenario is fair and accurate. For myself, whenever I get a chance to get away from ‘obligations’ I go straight to the woods and stay there until I have to come back. On the other hand I still don’t see the City scenario of boredom being ruled out, though to be fair there is a chance that people’s expectations would adapt to the dominant reality which would render the point moot. If the condition did persist in some it may be down to soma and/or ‘correction,’ but as the scenario is untested no one can say for sure whether the problem would in fact exist or not. Psychological adaptation is very powerful, but if there is a something fundamental missing it would present itself… I’m sure the idea is that if there was a fundamental flaw it would be designed out of the system. As to how it would be all I can do is to speculate and I have no way of knowing what the solution arrived at would be.

I’ll grant that the socialism argument is semantical. Perhaps Holisticism for our purposes is a better term, for that is like the idea behind primitivism. We agree on some fundamental things, such as that a person should not need money just to live, and that our current system is inherently and structurally unsustainable. Assuming you follow the logic of the presentation, then we also agree that the path to sustainability is through living by organic models based on natural systems. Where we diverge, we diverge in opposite directions, for I see a future in decentralization and limiting technology to that which is possible without the infrastructure, whereas you see a future in increased centralization and utilizing an advanced infrastructure to maximize technology. I wonder, if this could be broken down to value terms, what those terms would be…

I still see technology as more dehumanizing than humanizing, because for example, a doctor’s job is not purely technical in nature – a big part of the doctor’s job is in being a human being. Just as service was more personable at a general store than at a supermarket, and has become completely unpersonable with the introduction of self-serve scanners, so too a country doctor was more personable than today’s all-business doctors, who are more personable than a medical machine. I’m an introvert, but I still prefer to interact with humans in matters of business. Presumably there’d be plenty of time to hang out with friends and whatnot, and again people would surely adapt their expectations. It would be a different human nature, though; tv and cell phone junkies are already like aliens to me.

Another take on the subject of dehumanization:

-wvcaveman

  • Mon, Oct 18, 2010 - 11:34am

    #58
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: Americanism

Hi guys, remember me?  I’m the one who started this thread and unfortunately, large due to the gurgatations of JK121 it has gone off in directions I could never have imagined.

I regret that I got into a pissing contest with JK121 and made every attempt to avoid adding to it in my last post.  I also would like to thank wvcaveman for also attempting to reign JK121 in.  In this he succeeded only in part.  Instead of seeing the writing on the wall, JK121 just couldn’t help himself and responded by call ao’s and my comments “ignorant and arrogant”.  The only thing I can say to him this is; my God can’t you see how ignorant and arrogant the comment you just made is?  No, apparently not because in your mind you are the only person in the whole world who is not ignorant and arrogant.  How sad, how truly sad.

As for you wccaveman, whomever you are, my hat goes off to you.  I know a great work of art when I see it.  Knowing this is simple, if I can replicate the work in question, then its not so great and if I can’t, then it is.  Understanding this, let my say that I could never accomplish what you did and be as informative as you were in your last contribution.  Fantastic job and all of us owe you a word of thanks for it.

Having said all of the above, I would like to now re-focus on my original work which was not about finding an ecomic utopia.  Instead, it was about returning to a political utopia which was once these United States and which we now have lost.  To put is in the most simple terms, a Representative Democratic Republic is the greatest and best form of government ever devised by man and we have given up this government bequethed to us by the Founders such that the world is now essentially ruled by a Fascist Dictatorship.  This being the case, all talk of utopias and remaking our economic system are pointless and futile because our New World Order masters will not permit it.  This being the case all our posturings and offerings in this post amount to nothing more than mental masturbation; it feels good to do it, but really amounts to nothing.

 

 

 

 

  • Mon, Oct 18, 2010 - 03:19pm

    #59
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: Americanism

 

AO, age thing not needed.  Move one.  WVcaveman, I will say we see eye to eye on most of the issues.  As for the dehumanization issue, we both are correct, there are positive and negative aspects with the technology issue.  Citizenal, I agree with you on most things, government is out of hand, the nwo powers do have a role that needs to be stopped, I would like your opinion on that issue some more, since that is important to Americanism and the rest of the world.  I will say though you still can be an Alte Furz Tongue out  

K, back to my utopia.  Oh oops almost forgot, AO,  accomplishments, degree in healthcare services, but probably going back to by a nurse.  Nurses will be much needed.  World traveler (Germany, Hungry, Austria, Hawaii, california, canada, florida), volunteer work, fund raises, and a Good Golfer, well I tell myself that haha.  

  • Mon, Oct 18, 2010 - 04:13pm

    #60
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: Americanism

Citizenal,

 

Without honoring humanity’s land rights…poverty and slavery will abound.

“This imperfect policy of non-intervention, or laissez-faire, led straight to a most hideous and dreadful economic exploitation; starvation wages, slum dwelling, killing hours, pauperism, coffin-ships, child-labour — nothing like it had ever been seen in modern times….People began to say, perhaps naturally, if this is what State absentation comes to, let us have some State intervention.

“But the State had intervened; that was the whole trouble. The State had established one monopoly, — the landlord’s monopoly of economic rent, — thereby shutting off great hordes of people from free access to the only source of human subsistence, and driving them into the factories to work for whatever Mr. Gradgrind and Mr. Bottles chose to give them. The land of England, while by no means nearly all actually occupied, was all legally occupied; and this State-created monopoly enabled landlords to satisfy their needs and desires with little exertion or none, but it also removed the land from competition with industry in the labour market, thus creating a huge, constant and exigent labour-surplus.”

— Albert Jay Nock, Free Speech and Plain Language, pp. 320-1

Does the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights acknowledge individual land rights?

In fact, any private property can be taken with just compensation.

-littleone

Viewing 10 posts - 51 through 60 (of 67 total)

Login or Register to post comments