Grasscity - Cyber Week Sale - up to 50% Discount

Your opinion on the Zeitgeist Movement?

Discussion in 'Pandora's Box' started by MakaveliArts, May 12, 2010.

  1. Oh and another thing I've been reading the debunk of the movie, and he definately did a good job debunking parts of it. However he is CLEARLY biased, and sort of retarded.

    "Although strange, it is not inconceivable that his passport could have survived the blast, considering highly flammable floatable airplane seats were also found, and can even be seen in the post-attack photographs."

    That's a statement he made, it's a stupid one because the movie suggests there wasn't a crash at all, they suggest that the flight 93 crash didn't happen BECAUSE there were airplane seats found, which would be impossible after a crash like that if the actual plane had been incinerated. So he somehow then uses the fact that airplane seats being left at the supposed "crash site" is proof that passports could survive a plane crash, which if course is ridiculous.

    The guy is too biased, you need an objective third party. Also alot of his sources are debatable, I mean if you really wanted to do it the right way, you would actually go out and meet face to face with people instead of sourcing cheap internet sites you find after hours of searching google for what you want the site to say. I mean half the sites he used to source for the Jesus section were christian evangelical literalist sites.... Those guys aren't exactly the brightest.
  2. aside from what you may have been told what makes you believe we are running out of water?

    also, he has three post, they were all here in this thread about a month ago, he probably gave up on this site alltogether.
  3. Apologies on the delay; thought no one was interested. Can see I was wrong! :)

    Simply, a resource-based-economy is one where all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude, where the earth's resources are recognized as the common heritage of all.

    More info here:
    Resource Based Economy

    Impossible? Says who? By what evidence do you make such a statement? Also, define "everything"?

    One of the major aspects of this concept, one that is often overlooked, is the social consciousness change. To say, it will be extremely unpopular to want to have more than you need or similarly, to desire frivolous material items to give your life meaning.

    By what evidence do you make your claims we're running out of food & water?

    Food is becoming scarce largely due to our focus on a monetary system, making natural food too expensive for most to afford. This is not running out of food, but more of a technical problem of production & distribution that can be solved today.

    As for water, the earth is over 80% water... we're not running out of water; rather we're not investing in practical solutions towards tapping the water we have. A single modern desalinization plant off the coast of a major port city would provide more than enough water for all of the city and more.

    Our current systems are EXTREMELY wasteful. It's a mistake to confuse "not enough available" with "not using what we have effectively". One of the major practical priorities with TZM/TVP is the generation of abundance; maximizing production efficiency for abundance. This has yet to be a focus of modern society; imagine if it were a focus what we could achieve.

    As for "everything they need & desire", this is largely an american / capitalist creation; that somehow happiness is attained through the acquisition of material goods. It's part of the big lie you're told to keep you buying things indefinitely; a requirement of capitalism. Life is not about fulfilling pie-in-the-sky material dreams; part of the proposed change is educating each other on the folly of such thinking.

    As for selfish goals, we're only selfish when our base needs are not met, or when we don't have the option of reasonably satisfying them. You're applying "today thinking" to the a future where such behavior is irrelevant (for reasons suggested above).

    Not destroy human needs or desires, not at all. Only recognize that, like most systems in nature, our survival is dependent on cooperation, not competition.

    Agree we definitely need to understand the carrying capacity of the earth and that finite resources = limitation. However, given our current wasteful methods of production and distribution, I don't think we're anywhere near reaching the carrying capacity of the earth; only we don't use what we have effectively.

    Most of these questions could be answers with a little research. To start, watch TZM Addendum if you haven't yet. There is also an excellent reading list here:
  4. #24 WickedLiquid, Jul 2, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 2, 2010
    Ecologists warn the planet is running short of water - Times Online
    China, Running out of Water, An Ecological Disaster Looms Ahead

    Ever heard of peak oil? Peak Water is the exact same idea.

    You're resource economy could work if everything was available for everyone. However human greed will not allow us to cease being wasteful if it means that they don't get their orange juice in the morning.

    I'm sorry, but I think you over-estimate the human mind. Most people wouldn't be willing to sacrifice their wants, for other peoples needs. Before you ask me for proof, why don't you prove that humans will give up their way of life, just so other people halfway across the planet who they can't even see suffering can live day to day with water and food? You say that I'm applying 'today thinking', of course I am, because it is 'today thinking' that you are going to have to completely change. Do you realize how impossible it is to change the minds of all the adults in the world from a wasteful society to an efficient one? Humans are NOT ONLY selfish when our base needs aren't met. People want MORE than just base needs. Where do you get the evidence to say such a thing?

    Your system proves nothing, all you keep saying is that it COULD be possible and WOULD be possible. Then when I pose the idea that most people aren't willing to give up their western life style for other people you ask ME to prove it, why don't you prove what you need to prove first?

    Your system is essentially a communist one, that all of the resources in the world belong to everyone, and we can share them evenly. But that's not how the human mind works. Children need to be taught to share, because inherently they want everything for themselves. This is how the human mind works, just because the world is ran by adults, doesn't mean that those adults won't take advantage of the system. I don't need to prove human greed, because it is all around us, regardless of which environment you put humans in, that will not change their demeanour, humans will always figure out a way to try and spoil the system.

    Also third last paragraph you state that if you look at most systems in nature you will see survival is dependent on co-operation and not competition. That is ridiculous, and if that were true you would also be trying to refute evolution. Evolution is driven by many things, one of those things being competition. Nature IS competition. It is a competition for survival. Symbiotic relationships are certainly present in nature, but they are not necessarily the norm, and when they are, very often symbiotic relationships are formed to try and defeat the rest of the competition. It's a constant struggle.

    I think you need to study a lot more about the human mind and behaviour patterns in animals before making the majority of these statements. Communism looks great on paper just like this theory did, but once finally tested it doesn't work because of human corruption.

    After all some people are more equal than others.

    Want to know the system that works? We can continue being wasteful, and continue trying to meet every single desire we have. We can live with the comfort we have now. All we have to do? Lower the world population back down to 1 - 2 billion people. If you have less people being wasteful, then you don't have to worry about waste. You can waste as much as you want. No mind set has to change, no system has to change. Just lower the world population. Limit on child per couple, and it's solved. If you limited reproduction in the world, you would see significant change in just fifty years. In one hundred years you could solve the waste problem, with just a limitation on reproduction.

    The solution is as easy as that.

Share This Page