Zeitgeist: Addendum

[Max Goldberg]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...05277695921912

Above is the sequel to the first Zeitgeist film. Tonight I went to the encore premiere at the Artivist film festival and watched Peter Joseph, the film's creator, as well as members of The Venus Project, oblige questions from the audience.

I went because the first film compelled me, and I wanted to see what the hell other folks who've seen it looked like (all walks, old and young). I was amazed at how supportive everyone in the audience was of the film. I never considered watching it in public, especially to such a positive response.

The film needs to be watched to be fully appreciated, but put broadly it discusses causes, effects, and links between human behavior, debt-as-globalization, and major flaws in present social and governmental institutions (with a heavy emphasis on the problems of currency). Unlike most films on those subjects, Zeitgeist: Addendum proposes solutions to those problems, through radical economic and social philosophies, and practical recommendations on "crashing" the current system.

So. Have you seen it? I envision a lively discussion to follow...

It is a full length film, and I'd recommend watching it all at once. Both films were released at no cost and hugely received on Google Video.

[CaptainBreakfast]

#1. I find the utopian idea of the technological future to be a fairy tale, one that is unachievable by any means based on the current state of world affairs.

A state of perpetual abundance is insane and environmentally impossible, and seeks to further defy the natural ratio of resource availability to population, an issue that the world continues to experience in the form of starvation. Many people say that starvation is due to poor resource allocation and the emergence of cash cropping in third world countries, and I agree. The resource availability to the locals is small, and so they starve because of the lack of importation of resources, because their cash crop isn't very valuable due to abundance. Imagine if New York was not able to import any resources. Millions would starve or move, probably both. But when you have no place to move to, when starvation is all around, then starvation becomes your only choice

#2. I'm sure nathansmart would vouch for me on this one, that the portrayal of religious institutions in this particular film is unrealistic and heavily biased towards empirical and somewhat radical atheism.

#3. When talking about a non-dualistic view with the world, that is solely something to be experienced. Just by being told that you are the universe, and the universe is you, and that you are a projection of that universe, does not make it true. You can say to believe it, but all you are believing are words and a concept. Your actual consciousness has to shift, and your view of reality has have a significant change, before you or anyone can see the world in that way. In order for it to be true, you have to see it and realize it for yourself. Until then, it's just a myth that you can go on believing and telling others about.

#4. The ending is exactly like that of "An Inconvenient Truth," in the sense that it gives a bunch of problems, and then here are the small things that you can do. Those small things will not change a thing, and most people would probably forget about them altogether. Big changes comes from doing big things (yes, I've read The Tipping Point). Wanna reform society? Blow up some buildings, minimize casualties, and spread propaganda like wildfire. Peaceful governmental and social revolutions have only occurred in the midst of violence and conflict.

I may be wrong. More if I feel like it.

[Keith Whitener]

I haven't seen this, but I wanted to say this: whenever someone presents me a, "Look, if we all do this," sort of solution or Utopia I think, "Yeah, if we all did the same thing things would be a lot easier." But we don't. We have free-will, and for everyone to simultaneously choose to do the same thing at once seems highly implausible.

[CaptainBreakfast]

I haven't seen this, but I wanted to say this: whenever someone presents me a, "Look, if we all do this," sort of solution or Utopia I think, "Yeah, if we all did the same thing things would be a lot easier." But we don't. We have free-will, and for everyone to simultaneously choose to do the same thing at once seems highly implausible.

Yeah, this movie half does that. It is saying that everyone will live in a way that is completely different than now, that technology will rein supreme and work will be obsolete, all the while protecting our environment. It is impossible for everyone to convert to a different way of living. There are still indigenous people who would rather die than give up their way of life. The Amish would never adopt our current way of living. It's foolish to think that everyone will go towards another way of living, simply because there is no one right way to live, and to say that there is shows great ignorance, I believe.

[MikeHilinski]

That utopia looks like it'll be crazy expensive.

[Max Goldberg]

That utopia looks like it'll be crazy expensive.

At the Q & A after the premiere, Peter Joseph and the Venus Project folks made a point to correct people who referred to what the film proposed as a "utopia," and stated that it specifically wouldn't be utopian in design -- though it would attempt to solve specific problems inherent to a profit- and scarcity-based economy.

Regarding it being "expensive," there would be a non-monetary cost of sorts, but the most crucial difference between the film's proposed society and ours is their absence of currency (so it technically isn't "expensive" in the contemporary sense). Their proposed "abundance-" and resource-based economy eliminates the use of fossil fuels with some brilliant and under-utilized alternative energy solutions (beyond wind and solar), as well as the concepts of financial debt and traditional government.

[MikeHilinski]

At the Q & A after the premiere, Peter Joseph and the Venus Project folks made a point to correct people who referred to what the film proposed as a "utopia," and stated that it specifically wouldn't be utopian in design -- though it would attempt to solve specific problems inherent to a profit- and scarcity-based economy.

Regarding it being "expensive," there would be a non-monetary cost of sorts, but the most crucial difference between the film's proposed society and ours is their absence of currency (so it technically isn't "expensive" in the contemporary sense). Their proposed "abundance-" and resource-based economy eliminates the use of fossil fuels with some brilliant and under-utilized alternative energy solutions (beyond wind and solar), as well as the concepts of financial debt and traditional government.

i know.

[Max Goldberg]

i know.

cool.

[CaptainBreakfast]

Maybe the question is better phrased: "Where would people draw the resources from and how will the phenomenal amount of labor be compensated?"

You can't say robots. Someone has to build robots. And it can't be other robots who build robots because then you get the beginning of how every robocalypse occurs.

[Batman The Horse]

I turned the first one off after the weird burn-out psychedelics came on with the ominous voiceover about symbols on our money and somehow Jews are involved.

So yea... about 4 minutes in.

My weed dealer says it's amazing, though.

[NFox]

Damn hippies!

[ProfessorShutYoMouth]

Maybe the question is better phrased: "Where would people draw the resources from and how will the phenomenal amount of labor be compensated?"

You can't say robots. Someone has to build robots. And it can't be other robots who build robots because then you get the beginning of how every robocalypse occurs.

Obviously, first you have to build the robots that will build the robots that build robots, with the help of robots.

Just accept it man, the future is like...robotical and shit.

[Jenny]

reading the synopsis of the first film, it seems very conspiracy theory laden and I'm very wary of that stuff. No offense, Max. Keith and captain breakfast have voiced by thoughts better than I could.

[midnightsamadhi]

This is my first post on AST, so HELLO ALL!
I few questions I have regarding this film.
One has to do with APPRECIATION. If someone in this new society does something for someone else, and they feel gratitude or appreciation, they might want to in some way express that. If they give something to/do something for that person, that is a “barter” system, no? For instance, I could not help but relate it back to my occupation, being a teacher. If I teach someone a skill, (being that what I have to offer is not in abundance, and is yet another question I have concerning this film) and they show me some kind of “payment” back, how is it different then getting monies for this? (without getting into the debt-enslavement angle of money proposed in the film).
The other : we have to throw off our masters in this time, be it the collective “illuminati” or what have you, simply to embrace our new master as technology? As stated before in other posts, someone has to build and maintain these technologies, and while it might be there passion, sometimes, you just might want to take a small break from your passion, for whatever length of time that might be. A day, a week, a year…and if, lets say, you like working in the geothermic plant, if you want to take a break, but something happens at the plant, do you have to go in and fix it? Then is that not your DUTY to fix it? So we have simply redefined JOB as DUTY?
And skills are not in abundance. I will admit, it is hard for me to picture nano-bots(spelling? Sorry) in my body giving me skills and abilities (like “training downloads” in the matrix? I don’t have to say “I know kung fu” do I? )Perhaps, I don’t want to have nano-tech in my body doing something FOR ME. But regardless, if a nano-bot can give me skills, make me mediate better so I reach high levels of consciousness , make me read and remember everything perfectly, make it so my dna does not “betray me” when I grow older with sickness…do I not stop being human and simply controlled by these machines?
Supposing that nano-tech can not give me said abilities... then skills would not be in abundance. So only a few would possess skills others needed to survive, even if it was only the skills to understand the technology that existed around them while others don’t. With all the “free” time given to man by technology, would they not want to explore other skills? Painting, writing, photography? Or are the machines supposed to “help” us with that too? No one can take a bad picture, because the bots will fix it…no one can draw a “Picasso” becauseits not a “good” painting, or what have you. We don’t need sports because there is inherent winning and losing. Or martial arts. So we are left with thinking, if we are still allowed to do that in our own pathways and avenues…fficeffice" />>>
I just watched this movie a couple of hours ago, so these thoughts just flew out of my head…please feel free to tear down, elaborate, or give your own thoughts to my post.>>
Thank you>>
Namaste>>
midnightsamadhi

[sweatszs]

i do not think the views expressed in the venus project can happen overnight and i don't think any sort of physical reform is out of the question..what i do know in my mind is it does make sense to live without a monetary system and their really cannot be any sort of democracy with that at its head. i don't think it is right to press these beliefs on anyone who does not want to conform to them but if you match the amish and indigenous at examples of people you cannot just change..is a bit ridiculous..the video does not say they will forcefully change everyones way of thinking nor does it say everyone will have this sort of 'awakening' or realization. and comparing those two groups of people who rarely effect the worlds economy that greatly or would honestly hate the idea if everyone got a bit simpler and took in nature more..is silly. of course they wouldn't like or understand the technological growth the venus project talks about but i think that they of all people would except the idea.

in response to this..
'#3. When talking about a non-dualistic view with the world, that is solely something to be experienced. Just by being told that you are the universe, and the universe is you, and that you are a projection of that universe, does not make it true. You can say to believe it, but all you are believing are words and a concept. Your actual consciousness has to shift, and your view of reality has have a significant change, before you or anyone can see the world in that way. In order for it to be true, you have to see it and realize it for yourself. Until then, it's just a myth that you can go on believing and telling others about.'

which is exactly what the video states..YOU have to realize it for yourself. no video or friend or family can persuade you of a completely reformed society..it is only you that must read and become informed and decide for yourself what is best for the world. not even picking at every little seen flaw in this video can/should persuade you to think different. people must learn to inform themselves..reading both sides to everything. REALIZING things first hand not from any grapevine.

this video is simply to inform and expose some truth for you to then read on..

my own views of negativity go like this..
i find it hard to think that everyone can agree on any one thing..hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years back us up with this human competitive nature and i really doubt that will change any time soon. we have been told at an early age to achieve greatness..in any class we are competing with one another to show our greatness before we die. i never have felt much into competing but it is human nature to want to be better and that CAN evolve, just like everything else, for the better. this video forty or fifty years ago would never have been seen. it would never have been a free streaming video over the internet because the internet wasn't even here. we make technology to grow and with it our own minds expand. what is to say we can't all change the more we are informed? to say not everyone will agree on everything is true. i have disagreed with my own roommates on this very subject and i don't see them completely changing on any of it. the venus project is a goal in my eyes..something with more publicity might exactly change some minds or help to see more.

people are to eager to dismiss a new society in fear that they actually might see change in their lifetime. i'm telling you now..give it a chance..maybe with a little time we might all see some more awakening.

[sweatszs]

and in closing..we can write on forums all day and discuss our views and concrete them in our minds but in the end and my favorite part of this video is when old jaque says something like this.. ' we will find another way or it will just be too late '..(and to eleborate) we will discuss this like all humans love to do showing each other up with bigger words and then..it really will be too late.

think about it.

[sweatszs]

As stated before in other posts, someone has to build and maintain these technologies, and while it might be there passion, sometimes, you just might want to take a small break from your passion, for whatever length of time that might be. A day, a week, a year…and if, lets say, you like working in the geothermic plant, if you want to take a break, but something happens at the plant, do you have to go in and fix it? Then is that not your DUTY to fix it? So we have simply redefined JOB as DUTY?
And skills are not in abundance. I will admit, it is hard for me to picture nano-bots(spelling? Sorry) in my body giving me skills and abilities (like “training downloads” in the matrix? I don’t have to say “I know kung fu” do I? )Perhaps, I don’t want to have nano-tech in my body doing something FOR ME. But regardless, if a nano-bot can give me skills, make me mediate better so I reach high levels of consciousness , make me read and remember everything perfectly, make it so my dna does not “betray me” when I grow older with sickness…do I not stop being human and simply controlled by these machines?
Supposing that nano-tech can not give me said abilities... then skills would not be in abundance. So only a few would possess skills others needed to survive, even if it was only the skills to understand the technology that existed around them while others don’t. With all the “free” time given to man by technology, would they not want to explore other skills? Painting, writing, photography? Or are the machines supposed to “help” us with that too? No one can take a bad picture, because the bots will fix it…no one can draw a “Picasso” becauseits not a “good” painting, or what have you. We don’t need sports because there is inherent winning and losing.
midnightsamadhi

'At the beginning of the Industrial Age, a great majority of people worked in factories. Today, automation comprises 90% of nearly all factories. This has displaced humans and created a large, artificial "service" industry in order to keep humans in employment for money.'

now tell me how hard it would be to build a few more of these robotic controlled factories to make a few more things we don't already make by them. why is everyone so scared of technology? it's like you watched I,Robot and took it wayyyyyyy to literally.

baby steps people..baby steps.

[sweatszs]

re-watch the video.