The Zeitgeist Movement: Orientation Presentation

Dandelion Salad

replaced video Aug. 26, 2012

1:37:08 – Mar 6, 2009
The Zeitgeist Movement – www.thezeitgeistmovement.com

on Mar 11, 2009

see

Zeitgeist: Addendum

Zeitgeist Part One Exposed: The Film

Zeitgeist Refuted + Zeitgeist Debunked (videos)

Debunked: Zeitgeist – Parts I, II and III

Zeitgeist, The Movie – Remastered/Final Edition

Free Energy and the Open Source Energy Movement (Part 1)

Money As Debt (video) + “In Debt We Have Trusted,” For over 300 years By Jim Kirwan

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “The Zeitgeist Movement: Orientation Presentation

  1. Pingback: Why the direct attack on Christianity in Zeitgeist? (2008) « Dandelion Salad

  2. Pingback: Zeitgeist Refuted Final Cut « Dandelion Salad

  3. Pingback: Debunked: Zeitgeist – Parts I, II and III « Dandelion Salad

  4. The bottom line is things are messed up, and something needs to be done. This movement is the biggest thing to happen, and at a time that is very critical. The movies that Peter Joseph has put together are amazing tools to spread awareness of our current situations, and also provides some excellent ideas and reasonable possibilities for the future. No one ever said these ideas are perfect or set in concrete, but there isn’t anything else out there, that is this becoming this big, this fast. The Zeitgeist movement is the ride to get on!

    Try to look past the Venus Project, and focus on the main goal that the movement is after. That goal is for the good of the planet and all the inhabitants on it. The Venus Project is just a result of our goal, because it provides some excellent ideas, concepts and structure. We can work things out as we come to them, just like we do with everything else in life. The main thing is to see where we are headed, and put our foot headed in that direction.

    This is real people! This is good! This is evolution! Embrace it and enjoy it, or end up like the dinosaurs! Evolution doesn’t wait for stupid!

    • Well, like I said, I’m totally down with some form of monetary reform, which the first part of this film is very informative about the need for. Righting the wrongs of industrial & agricultural mass production, mass-marketing and planned-obsolescence, their devastation of resources, the planet, worker’s rights, international class inequities are also profoundly important directions, ones which technology should be used and developed around.

      Obviously I find this fascinating or I wouldn’t be clacking away here about it.

      But… robot-based government? Please.

      Machines used for science, reducing the drudgery of experimentation, even employing A.I. sounds neat (which reminds of another movie, the Robbin Williams one where the machine spent a few centuries trying to be human…), all fascinating.

      But at a certain point, the more powerful and ‘intelligent’ these things get, you’d need to actually legislate how much credence and reliance you’d allow them. Machines may be able to compute and logic, and win chess, but dream? I wouldn’t dream of it.

      And I definitely don’t wanna live in some planned titanium city from Logan’s Run! This whole second Venusian part should not have been combined with the first more practical part as a unified theory of progress.

      Likely the opposite is true– technology has taken us so far from our organic roots, that it’s ruining our happiness. You need put it away, to be barefoot, far from electronic cities (which are a completely unnatural society, we should run from them, city life has become anything but progressive or enlightened, better you should live in a shack by a pond for a year…)

      The saving grace of Hollywood is that it has cornered the most creative in all fields, therefore it’s a wealth of what was once a diversity of creative disciplines (writers, actors, musicians, story-tellers, entertainers, etc.) There’s too much talent in Hollywood for it to be all bad. It’s just a disaster that it follows the money, and that every creative impulse is co-opted by the entertainment industry, all the more reason to re-contact our creative roots, and focus on folk-society, not high-tech systematized ones.

      It seems the greatest crimes are not committed by people facing problems with resources, look at Madoff. They are schemes by people with more than enough, bitten with evil genius and imponderable greed.

      The more power offered individuals via machines, the greater the possible crime. Cybercrime only grows, and viruses only proliferate. We are incapable of designing a technology that defies the trouble-maker, and these nerds are not writing malware because they’re running out of Doritos.

      One of Madoff’s big contributions was the NASDAQ, screen-based trading, allowing criminals of finance to short & hedge with ever more power and precision.

      I don’t think the government is the Borg, it’s more like the Mob, a mafiaocracy.

      There is something to be said for the notion that democracy doesn’t work because people are too stupid to know what’s best for them. But perhaps it’s better to enlighten the people, not delegate decisions to logic-engines—

      Or are they saying we’re simply too imperfect, and therefore shouldn’t have the responsibility of governance? Perhaps, but then why reproduce at all? You’d be saying humans are too destructive to be allowed to walk the earth un-parented. If that’s the case, folks should just stop making people, and we should slowly, naturally die off as the voluntary human extinction movement professes(?).

      Let’s fix everything, but with an eye toward happy humanism and organic earthly, anti-electronic alternatives. Let’s absolutely not get too high on high-tech.

      Once we fix the monetary system, resource exploitatin, production, etc. per the very well reasoned first part, can we supply an alternative to this Venus vision, something more organic, natural and back to the land? I can think of no more miserable society than one that further relies on electronics and technology to divorce us from our organic roots.

      • Hollywood has done great harm to our value system as a whole. There is some work of substance from hollywood but very little. The main idea presented are intelligent managment of the earths resources,which i think most of us agree upon. One of the goals would be connect back with nature which i hope most people will see. If we used some our tech wisely it could do great things for humanity. Jacque Frescos designs for homes,energy,transportation are genuis and are based on current knowledge could be done.And your mocking him? He wants to use technology to create abundance so people dont have to starve and you think thats odd? Why shouldnt we consider some of these ideas. There is alot of people in this world that are suffering and they dont have food, electricty or clean water. Am all for organic roots but if we to go back to simpliar times we would condemn millions more to suffering. The way i see it everything in these world is backwards. What we have going on is alot of bad science,,billions are spent to harm and control people rather than to care for humanity, now that is a true crime.

        • But, but, but… a Billion Women live on a dollar a day in this world, There is the wealth to feed them all. Living a simpler life is what the vast majority live. The crime against the poor are these cities of the wealthy. Economically, environmentally, industrially.

          Technology does not create abundance, it already exists. Complete part one, and all would be more than fed with existing or currently developing technology.

          But realize and reveal the wisdom of these ‘poor’ peasants, their stories, their art, their fabrics, their humility, Africa, Indonesia, India, the good people live in the third world, not in hyper tech cities of the mega industrialist technocrats.

          The real world would need not that much to be more than happy. Spread the wealth we all created with all this exploitative commerce and evil industy, and more would be achieved than imagined, and horrific titanium cities run by CPU’s would not be needed.

          I challenge Jacques to do the math. Utopians always go WAY too far, and this is what 2004 teaches. Back to the land, back to the people, back to nature, bail out the poor, barefoot on the bare land in human community of conscience is where the humanitarian wisdom resides.

          Book to google for you: Flash of the Spirit. Better Utopia than yours, and it takes no machines but life on earth, water & air (the greatest dynamic ‘machine’ of all), and not that far from where the ‘proles’ who live in nature live, if they had just enough to happily live on.

          You won’t buy into Hollywood, why buy into Silicon Valley?

        • It is not utopia, because we can never be perfect. I will look at what you suggest. I have one for you,,,The Best That Money Cant Buy..Beyond Politics,Poverty,&War..by Jacque Fresco A Resource-Based Economy is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.

          Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.

          A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all.

          Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was No, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war.

          In a resource-based economy all of the world’s resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth’s people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative.

          We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world’s population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.

          Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfillment of one’s individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.

          At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth’s inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today’s society would no longer be necessary.

          A resource-based world economy would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave, and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years. A resource-based economy must also be committed to the redesign of our cities, transportation systems, and industrial plants, allowing them to be energy efficient, clean, and conveniently serve the needs of all people.

          What else would a resource-based economy mean? Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy.

          As we outgrow the need for professions based on the monetary system, for instance lawyers, bankers, insurance agents, marketing and advertising personnel, salespersons, and stockbrokers, a considerable amount of waste will be eliminated. Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners. Choice is good. But instead of hundreds of different manufacturing plants and all the paperwork and personnel required to turn out similar products, only a few of the highest quality would be needed to serve the entire population. Our only shortage is the lack of creative thought and intelligence in ourselves and our elected leaders to solve these problems. The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity.

          With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one’s job will no longer be a threat This assurance, combined with education on how to relate to one another in a much more meaningful way, could considerably reduce both mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore and develop our abilities.

          If the thought of eliminating money still troubles you, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold.

          Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.

      • It’s not a “Robot government” come take a look at what we are talking about. First you have to look at what a government does and why we need one right now what does the government do for you makes sure the garbage is picked up the roads are in good repair polices us and may or may not provide medical care all of these things would be handled for free by machines except policing. what else does a government do it regulates interest rates and inflation and by extension production however in TVP all production is also handled by machines so….. no it is not a robot government at all

  5. H-e-l-p.

    Looks to me like Jacques Fresco is a living sci-fi techno-dystopian nightmare.
    Bring back Buckminster Fuller…

    I love sci-fi as much as the next boy, but this fantasy is likely to lead to some combination of Aeon Flux, The Matrix, and 2001. I’m waiting for the pill for nano-particle net-meetings where we plot to overthrow the inevitable centralized machine-based mind-control, disconnect HAL, and learn cyper-martial arts to combat Agent Smith! Attack of the clones for real.

    So, in the machine’s infinite wisdom, surely it will decide we’re ‘imperfect’ and convert us all to a collective grey-goo bio-computer incapable of all those messy ‘illogical’ human impulses like love, passion, creativity, conflict, debate, emotion… the root of all our problems.

    The ultimate cooperative technological society is the Borg. Or the Terminator.

    Oh, and how do we eliminate crime, Robocop? Judge Dredd? And who’s gonna do all the hard work of mining all that titanium and building these Roger Dean Cities of Gold & Lead, Rutger Hauer & his merry band of Replicants?? I guess the overpopulation problem is fixed by ‘goin home’ at the ‘Sleepshop’, and food shortages are solved with Soylent Green.

    I have a better vision for you:
    Google Dick Proenneke.

    • NatureBoy apparently Hollywood has had huge effect on you, because to you seem to use it in your main arguement. Who runs hollywood? For what Purpose? You say how do we eliminate crime, Robocop? Judge Dredd? No we would use technology to overcome scarcity which the root cause of crime. You talk about Political process i would say the Borg in control now. What is being proposed is the Scientific Method for social concern. It would be alot better that what the corporation are doing at the present.

  6. But that’s not all he’s saying! Your 1-18 are all good goals, but… he can’t be serious about the second part. Just listen to the tone. He’s playing with you!

    Machines are tools, they can’t make political decisions.

    Are we so pre-programmed to be programmed that we’ll believe anything??

    Even Jones who actually does believe all he says (it seems) doesn’t ask you to blindly believe!

    This man (whoever he is, who is he anyway??) is saying to you: You-topia is feeding you soilent green– you really gonna eat that??

    You know the first part is right, you itemize it in your post, but this guy is sharp, the second part is forcing you to question authority.

    It’s obviously a joke! Laugh a little.

  7. Live response:

    I like ‘Natural Law 2’

    I am sad about the abundance of energy, because I did a paper in 1984 with all those: geothermal, wave, wind, solar, tidal. It’s maddening. News today is oil corps are reneging on Obama’s alternative initiatives.

    The powers that be aren’t going to abandon their beloved monetary system soon, per oil.

    The vision about house construction will take a bit more to realize, but it’s almost there. Unfortunately it’s not the ‘bing-bang-boom’ profitable method of churning out bad buildings, and apparently the cat is out of the bag on bad, cheap, planned-obsolescent building methods bent on inefficiency of design.

    With hydroponics, how would Monsanto be able to control ag and the cancer industry?

    These are the progressive, empirical intelligent ideas, but the world is run by conservatives who think god gave them the earth to abuse, and that greed is god, and the war is just, not exactly a fertile ground for good ideas.

    Nobody is really gonna bring technology to a resource based economy without the greed imperative, they just don’t have brains that work logically, they are programmed to exploit, either as workers or executives, all in the interest of being the fat-cat.

    The psychology of the USA is far too corrupt by the vile greed-based monetary system to implement this, as the abandonment of 70’s environmental and energy conservation/construction/transportation initiatives proved. You’d need to start in India or Africa.

    This is all a Utopia people like Bucky Fuller came up with in the 50’s & 60’s, he had much of this worked out, nobody cares.

    This is utopian agricultural and construction/energy idea is correct, but the people are corrupt, addicted, and once an addict always an addict. You’ll just have to let the monetary system collapse, let this land become Haiti, and try this with a more fertile society.

    But this whole idea of ‘cybernation’, it’s likely not gonna jive with the fact that we’re animals, and meant to work with our hands. This is a very weak link, methinks.

    Technological innovation is not done through altruistic efforts, it’s done for planned-obsolescent product-development. A world run by self-repairing machines is a bit of a scary Matrix world. I think we have a really good amount of technology, and actually would benefit more from getting our hands dirty and farming again.

    To try to boil down human relationship to the environment with technical processes is misguided, IMO. The next phase of social evolution is to get back to the land.

    Calculators are not logical-reasoning machines, they are just tools, electronic slide-rules and adding machines.

    I liked this up until the ‘resource based economy’ became the robotic world of machines. Yikes. The revenge of the cybernerds for real.

    Let’s try instead rejecting technology a bit, and re-humanizing the world. A computerized government? This is just terrifying. This guy has just fallen off the deep end.

    ‘Everything in regard to social organization is a technical process’??? We’re no more than gears in a clock?? Yikes!

    “The transfer of decision making to computers is the next great advance”– not even Star Wars or Star Trek imagined such a world.

    You can’t say technology is a tool while at the same time technology should be programmed to make societal decisions. Human society is NOT a machine!

    Now I get it, he’s playing Devil’s advocate, or he’s lost his mind.

    Computerized real-time war-strategies??? OMFG, remember ‘Wargames’ from the 80’s?

    He’s just playing with us, he’s smiling while he’s reading this, it’s a joke.

    Go with part 1, and delete the rest.

    • Thanks for the review, Natureboy. There are some good ideas and not so good ideas in this project/movement, but the main point is that we need to do something different, like alternative renewable energy and get rid of money all together. Ridding poverty would indeed lower the crime rate (not to mention keep people from starving to death).

      • I do like his ‘monetary system 101’ in the beginning, it makes much sense, it’s both unsustainable and a game.

        There are a few more directions for technology to pursue, energy, transportation, medicine. It’s a tragedy that the only thing that’s apparently gonna achieve that is consumerism, but that’s what’s made the experiment of the internet (not a consumerist idea) so useful to people (purely consumerist).

        There just has never been such a motivating factor to develop user-friendly inventions like consumerism. But we certainly have enough gadgets.

        The remaining uses for technology: Transportation, energy, medicine and construction should indeed be sponsored by the people in service of the people, not private enterprise, and as these privatized factories fail, we should nationalize them and use them for this purpose of ideal development of the best possible solutions: GM, Biotech, Prefab housing, Alternative energy initiatives being sold off by BP, etc.

        Hydroponics is indeed very interesting, and some of these empty, vacant glass condos would likely be perfect for conversion to that, right in the middle of cities.

        The era of products is likely on the wane, but likely commerce is not dead, and to create products that aren’t planned for obsolescence, which are made the very best way, and which enrich people’s lives, you need to bring back true craft in which there is a greater personal incentive than profit and productivity.

        There is a huge part this guy misses, which is that one of our most defining factors as humans is that we make things, personal things, we are creative, we evolved to produce beauty and utility with our hands. And often the more handmade the better. Using these handmade things reconnects us with our common humanity. There is a reason potters and knitters are happier people than most…

        Likely intentional craft/agrarian communities would be better therapy for a sick consumerist society than delegating all of our functions to technology (even if there were somebody interested in designing them without the capitalist incentive).

        It’s not been that long since we did live a sustainable, self-supplied, non-monetary, more barter-based lifestyle, and it had to do with the small farm/small community model before the war, which was destroyed by industrialism.

        Unfortunately that took hard work, and it was religion that seemed to celebrate work (each abandoned small town in the boonies has it’s church…) so you might have a problem getting people to love work without religion.

        We should not abandon everything we were for some dream of everything we’ve never yet been. Addicting ourselves to technology seems the antithesis of self-reliance, sustainability and personal satisfaction.

        As with most utopias, it’s more a matter for si-fi books, but certainly the elements of problem solving in the realms of transportation, food-production, construction, medecine and energy are very doable. The wasteful nature of product-development will just need to be regulated and recycled– as much as we’re all so over consumerism, people are religious about their I-phones, and threw their Blackberry’s away the moment it appeared, and so it goes.

        As you can tell, I really like this topic, we need to keep thinking about a better way to do this, and not only tear down the farce of our current mess. I would love to get back to all the exciting work I was doing on sustainable, super-efficient building methods, but the wars kinda got in the way of idealistic design… (war sorta does that, doesn’t it? It would be amazing what we could do as an inspired society if we weren’t at war. War makes everything seem useless).

        I think the purpose of this film was to generate discussion, and to get people thinking about alternatives. That’s a good thing.

    • The computer systems would monitor the Earths resources and help keep a even base load for goods and supplies. NatureBoy you make some harsh claims,which are nonsense. The main aims of The Venus Project are 1. Realizing the declaration of the world’s resources as being the common heritage of all people.

      2. Transcending the artificial boundaries that currently and arbitrarily separate people.

      3. Replacing money-based nationalistic economies with a resource-based world economy.

      4. Assisting in stabilizing the world’s population through education and voluntary birth control.

      5. Reclaiming and restoring the natural environment to the best of our ability.

      6. Redesigning cities, transportation systems, agricultural industries, and industrial plants so that they are energy efficient, clean, and able to conveniently serve the needs of all people.

      7. Gradually outgrowing corporate entities and governments, (local, national, or supra- national) as means of social management.

      8. Sharing and applying new technologies for the benefit of all nations.

      9. Developing and using clean renewable energy sources.

      10. Manufacturing the highest quality products for the benefit of the world’s people.

      11. Requiring environmental impact studies prior to construction of any mega projects.

      12. Encouraging the widest range of creativity and incentive toward constructive endeavour.

      13. Outgrowing nationalism, bigotry, and prejudice through education.

      14. Eliminating elitism, technical or otherwise.

      15. Arriving at methodologies by careful research rather than random opinions.

      16. Enhancing communication in schools so that our language is relevant to the physical conditions of the world.

      17. Providing not only the necessities of life, but also offering challenges that stimulate the mind while emphasizing individuality rather than uniformity.

      18. Finally, preparing people intellectually and emotionally for the changes and challenges that lie ahead.

      • But that’s not all he’s saying! Your 1-18 are all good goals, but… he can’t be serious about the second part. Just listen to the tone. He’s playing with you!

        Machines are tools, they can’t make political decisions.

        Are we so pre-programmed to be programmed that we’ll believe anything??

        Even Jones who actually does believe all he says (it seems) doesn’t ask you to blindly believe!

        This man (whoever he is, who is he anyway??) is saying to you: You-topia is feeding you soilent green– you really gonna eat that??

        You know the first part is right, you itemize it in your post, but this guy is sharp, the second part is forcing you to question authority.

        It’s obviously a joke! Laugh a little.

Comments are closed.