[Movies] Zeitgeist and your Views

[soradakey]

There is a new documentary out on the current state of the world as well as what we can expect for the next few decades should we continue this destructive behaviour. This is the third of the Zeitgeist movies, and the best one imo. You might want to watch the second movie first (Zeitgeist Addendum) then watch Moving Forward, just so you understand some of what they are talking about. It is quite long so if you don't have much time you might want to watch it a little at a time, or perhaps you would just like to watch it in one sitting. Either way I would recomend you watch them if you are interested in a possible future for the earth.

If you have already seen the movie, what is your opinion of it? What did you like or dislike about the ideas presented?

Zeitgeist Addendum - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg
Zeitgeist: Moving Forward - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w

Please keep the discussion on the documentaries themselves.

[Melanieshaman]

I will have to watch these and get back to you, but the first film was amazingly insightful and very interesting.

[awake283]

Everything Zeitgeist Project related is scarily more truthful than a lot of people would think. To me, the overriding issue was how the monetary system inevitably creates debt, and any attempts/promises to fix it are total BS, as in principle it can't be fixed. So that shit will blow up (soon). Should be interesting.

I didn't like part one of Zeitgeist as (to me) spirituality is VERY real and of critical importance to the feeling of "having a purpose". Also I don't understand what religion had to do with any of the movies other two excellent points. Specifically, I still want someone to explain the physics of Building 7 falling down.

[Stelio Kontos]

The first movie wasn't very well-researched. Any undergrad in mythology or religion can see the mistakes they make regarding Mithras or the Egyptian gods.

Overall not very impressive. Documentaries are better when the agenda doesn't come before the facts.

[Takanasi]

Do you people realize that the Zeitgeist movies are full of false information. It is very well executed and sounds insightful, but is actually just guessing and illogical reasoning.

"There are tons of messiahs with the same characteristics as Jesus, therefore Jesus was copied from them."

Although that sounds reasonable, it doesn't mean it is true. Being a critical thinker is not the same as believing anything that contradicts known dogmas.

http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/

The Zeitgeist-Movies, while entertaining, are mostly conspiracy-bullshit and should be seen as entertaiment, not as a dokumentary.

Exactly this.

[Cjeska]

The Zeitgeist-Movies, while entertaining, are mostly conspiracy-bullshit and should be seen as entertaiment, not as a dokumentary.

[Badpaladin]

Overall not very impressive. Documentaries are better when the agenda doesn't come before the facts.

It's not a documentary, it's a video intended to get people to join their movement. If you were to view it in the light of a documentary, you'd be watching an incredibly mediocre film. But as a propaganda piece, it's great. Unfortunately for them, the majority of people that "are Zeitgeist" are as such because they watched the first movie and fell in love with the conspiracy theories. I'm glad they put out a video strongly tied to their ideals, but I don't forsee its impact being anything more than unnoticed.

[Scot]

I didn't realize people still bought into the "loose change-esque" conspiracies regarding 9/11. Popular Science did a pretty good job debunking all the "facts" (I laugh when I call them facts) that that movie stated. I started watching zeitgeist once, then saw it was painfully obvious that it was trying to push an agenda and couldn't finish it. Unlike your high school english teacher, I would prefer that the essay gave me all the facts no matter how "fence-riding" they are. Being one sided just makes me believe you less.

[Whitecrawler]

What surprises me is how poorly all 3 films are researched, tbh. The "movement" is nothing more than a religious cult. If you don't believe me, tell a Zeitgeist proponent that what he is watching is a lie. I bet that that person responds the same way any religious nut responds to the same accusations. They both site their only doctrine as the proof of the existence of what they believe and deny anything that says otherwise as .

With very little time on Google, you can punch holes through nearly all of the "facts" on the Zeitgeist films. All you have to do is filter out all the conspiracy theory sites that come up. Maybe put out a little effort and email an Egyptologist, archaeologist, or university History professor at your local university and ask for information or direction on where to find out information on the deities named in the movie and read the lore for yourselves.


Peter Joseph and his *cough* limited crew have ethically outstretched themselves as it pertains to the fields of study they are presenting. The problem with the whole "Jack of all trades" thing is the "master of none part". He's not a accredited historian, economist, religious scholar, structural engineer, astronomer, or linguist, yet he makes claims as if he was all of those things. His research is very often either taken out of context or a complete fabrication to fit the agenda he's delivering. What's saddest is the damage done by the fallacies presented in the films is already done, and it will take 10 times the effort to repair that damage. The problem with the internet these days is how quickly non-truths are spread as truths by people with zero credibility, while the facts are slow to follow because real research and credibility takes time to build.

Main point is, don't believe the crazy guy that stands on the box screaming the sky is falling unless he has some extraordinary, presentable, and reputable evidence to back it up. Don't believe it's true just because he says it's true. Research for yourself or ignore it and explore the awesome life that lays ahead of you.

TLDR:
Rofl at the thousands of people who wholly believe a propaganda movie made by one basement dweller who then try to discredit people for believing in a invisible man in the sky. Gullible and weak criticizing others of being gullible and weak.

/equip [Foil Hat of Awesome Tinniness]
/target barely educated and easily manipulated
/cast polymorph

[Deleted]

One thing a lot of people seem to forget is, that these films really are not meant to be a documentary. And I would argue that poor research or strong bias is not taking away so much from these films that their important message should be completely disregarded.
I was not a huge fan of the first film(mainly because it did not tell me a whole lot I did not already know) and I have only had time to see the first 60ish minutes of the second one yet but for me it is all about what the makers try to say, underneath the way they say it.


However a lot of what I have seen in the first hour of the second film, about Corporatocracy, economic hitmen and the exploitation of the world by the elite is not exactly something new but it also does not hurt to call it back to mind and it certainly should NOT be disregarded because some information may not be 100% . Because that is just the thing, I dont think about it in my every day life although I know very well it is going on all the time. I have succumbed to the same resignation most people have.
And why wouldnt I if it is so easy not to think about it, it just makes you miserable.


If you dispute the absurdity of the religious institutions or the exploitative and corrupt nature of how our capitalist society works, this is not your fault. You were made to believe in these systems.

You were born and, most likely - as was I - indoctrinated from the earliest stages of childhood. Long before I was able to think rationally and educate myself, I was already given a whole mindset that was constructed by someone else just to be adopted by me, for example in my religious beliefs.
And it IS difficult to break free, which is why the vast majority does not manage to and further fuels a broken system.

But I also think in that way the film is very valuable. You dont need to believe everything it tells you. But it is easy to research the issues that are a topic in it and make up your own mind.

Nobody who bashed the "facts" or rather the lack thereof in this thread is someone who was done any mentionable research himself, I would put my hand into fire for that.
You are just adopting someone elses opinion. Most likely what you caught in the youtube comments or wherever.

[Whitecrawler]

"these films really are not meant to be a documentary."

No, it's a misinformation piece presented in documentary format. The narrator presents information as if either he believes or wants the viewer to believe the information as factual. That in and of itself makes it misleading, deceitful, and potentially dangerous for the majority of people who can't tell the difference and/or believe whatever they see in a video as being true. Just look at Jared Lee Loughner.

"for me it is all about what the makers try to say, underneath the way they say it."

That argument would be valid if he would just "say it". However, he doesn't. He riddles the supposed message with factual inaccuracies and fabrications. If he had a valid or believable argument or idea to present, he wouldn't need the cloud of dung packed all around it.

However a lot of what I have seen in the first hour of the second film, about Corporatocracy, economic hitmen and the exploitation of the world by the elite is not exactly something new but it also does not hurt to call it back to mind and it certainly should NOT be disregarded because some information may not be 100%.

Just because it has pertinent information in between the abundant lies, doesn't the whole story credible. It's a tool that he uses on purpose to build confidence for when he tells a lie, the viewer less likely to doubt him. The problem is, he presents information at such a rate on such a wide variety of topics that you and most people can't tell the difference between truths, half truths, and outright lies. Hell, I even succumbed to his ruse for a good year or so before I decided to actually follow up on the validity of his information and credibility of his sources. If a your favorite icecream was made from 20% feces, would you eat it and call it a ice cream?
Peter Joseph presents the information as if it were wholly true. For that matter, his statements should be scrutinized, and if they hold up to that scrutiny, only then should you believe them. If they don't hold up, he should be proactive in correcting his errors in order to maintain some sense of credibility. If he spends 70% of the videos twisting quotes, fabricating ridiculous connections and outright lying in between a few well known facts, his aim is to lie and manipulate the viewer into believing his agenda. Why should anyone trust his message? Why would anyone so easily take advice from people that they know lie to them a majority of the time?

Nobody who bashed the "facts" or rather the lack thereof in this thread is someone who was done any mentionable research himself, I would put my hand into fire for that.

Catch me after done writing my 15pager for my Research Composition class. Make sure to dip it in some thick grease first.

You are just adopting someone elses opinion. Most likely what you caught in the youtube comments or wherever.

Is the kettle black?

[jtgizmo]

Mufuti : http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist

go read and cry yourself to sleep

[Deleted]

The Zeitgeist-Movies, while entertaining, are mostly conspiracy-bullshit and should be seen as entertaiment, not as a dokumentary.

there is no conspiracy here, its an analysis of the system we live in. its not like hes making it up, there is evidence to support what he says. open your eyes

---------- Post added 2011-01-27 at 02:29 PM ----------

No, it's a misinformation piece presented in documentary format. The narrator presents information as if either he believes or wants the viewer to believe the information as factual. That in and of itself makes it misleading, deceitful, and potentially dangerous for the majority of people who can't tell the difference and/or believe whatever they see in a video as being true. Just look at Jared Lee Loughner.



That argument would be valid if he would just "say it". However, he doesn't. He riddles the supposed message with factual inaccuracies and fabrications. If he had a valid or believable argument or idea to present, he wouldn't need the cloud of dung packed all around it.



Just because it has pertinent information in between the abundant lies, doesn't the whole story credible. It's a tool that he uses on purpose to build confidence for when he tells a lie, the viewer less likely to doubt him. The problem is, he presents information at such a rate on such a wide variety of topics that you and most people can't tell the difference between truths, half truths, and outright lies. Hell, I even succumbed to his ruse for a good year or so before I decided to actually follow up on the validity of his information and credibility of his sources. If a your favorite icecream was made from 20% feces, would you eat it and call it a ice cream?
Peter Joseph presents the information as if it were wholly true. For that matter, his statements should be scrutinized, and if they hold up to that scrutiny, only then should you believe them. If they don't hold up, he should be proactive in correcting his errors in order to maintain some sense of credibility. If he spends 70% of the videos twisting quotes, fabricating ridiculous connections and outright lying in between a few well known facts, his aim is to lie and manipulate the viewer into believing his agenda. Why should anyone trust his message? Why would anyone so easily take advice from people that they know lie to them a majority of the time?




Catch me after done writing my 15pager for my Research Composition class. Make sure to dip it in some thick grease first.



Is the kettle black?

i watched the video , i believe it. where are the lies your talking about?

[Tuvok]

I'd love to hear an actual substantiated rebuttal of his description on the failings of the mentioned economic system, instead of "it's conspiracy bullshit", and other such claims.

[Badpaladin]

I'd love to hear an actual substantiated rebuttal of his description on the failings of the mentioned economic system, instead of "it's conspiracy bullshit", and other such claims.

Because their ideas lead to:

a.) No monetary system
b.) No property
c.) No trade
d.) Automation and Technological unification

It's absolutely impossible to take anything this movie says seriously without believing in some of their concepts, as their whole basis is to write up a propoganda piece such that people can make a transitional movement possible. And that's the catch. I don't like transitional movements. Leninism promised a very similar transitional system(Communism) that was to fade into an anarchist state of free cooperation. Didn't happen.

Now, look at some of the things Zeitgeist proposes...total automation? No property, trade or money? What exactly are over 7 billion people supposed to do then, if they have nothing to work for other than "bettering society"? Sorry, but that's not how humans work.

Sorry, but for all its shortcomings capitalism is a damn good system. If the motive is profit, employees are obligated to create a good work environment and pay well so they can achieve balance as best as possible. Companies are obligated to keep their customers via services offered that extend far more than just "pay me". It's also an ever-changing system where demand can come from seemingly nowhere(take a look at the iPod, fro example) such that the rich don't just get richer from one thing time and time again. Yes, it's flawed. Corporations are allowed to get away with economic murder with regards to taxation in the US via altering the tax code, for one. It's also a problem we recognize and can easily correct. Even if it were to get worse and worse, it's still self-correcting because eventually people just won't buy their shit anymore. Profit is the greatest motive to change.

[Tuvok]

Because their ideas lead to:

a.) No monetary system
b.) No property
c.) No trade
d.) Automation and Technological unification

It's absolutely impossible to take anything this movie says seriously without believing in some of their concepts, as their whole basis is to write up a propoganda piece such that people can make a transitional movement possible. And that's the catch. I don't like transitional movements. Leninism promised a very similar transitional system(Communism) that was to fade into an anarchist state of free cooperation. Didn't happen.

Now, look at some of the things Zeitgeist proposes...total automation? No property, trade or money? What exactly are over 7 billion people supposed to do then, if they have nothing to work for other than "bettering society"? Sorry, but that's not how humans work.

Sorry, but for all its shortcomings capitalism is a damn good system. If the motive is profit, employees are obligated to create a good work environment and pay well so they can achieve balance as best as possible. Companies are obligated to keep their customers via services offered that extend far more than just "pay me". It's also an ever-changing system where demand can come from seemingly nowhere(take a look at the iPod, fro example) such that the rich don't just get richer from one thing time and time again. Yes, it's flawed. Corporations are allowed to get away with economic murder with regards to taxation in the US via altering the tax code, for one. It's also a problem we recognize and can easily correct. Even if it were to get worse and worse, it's still self-correcting because eventually people just won't buy their shit anymore. Profit is the greatest motive to change.

a.) No monetary system

What is the problem? Apart from it sounding absurd because we've lived with money our whole lives, do you honestly think that the monetary system is as good a system as we can come up with? Or even close to being a good one?

b.) No property

Outside of a piece of paper that only holds weight as long people accept that it does, you don't have any claim to the land of the Earth in reality and the physical world. You may think the deed to your house gives you ownership of land, but dominion over that land was not given to you by nature, it was given to you by man. To a species or even a group of people that refuse to recognise that deed, you don't own that property at all. Only amongst people that recognise this artificial order of things does your ownership of the land go recognised.

Also, saying no property sounds like saying there would be no homes for people to live in. Of course there would be, it's just a joke to suggest that a human being has a legitimate claim to some land of the Earth, something that is common heritage. So instead of having properties ranging from palaces to mud huts, a massive discrepancy not justifiable in the modern world, you take away the inequalities caused by the monetary system by changing the system to something better, and fairer. Who cares about land and property and ownership, when the pursuit of happiness is about the betterment of society and life for every human, instead of personal acquisition?

c.) No trade

Sounds worse than it is. Fair and logical management of the Earth's resources, distribution that's not influenced by wealth, would not only be better for the environment, but it would mean poverty would be abolished. Trade becomes unnecessary when resources are managed properly and fairly, there's no reason to barter when you have access to everything you need. Besides in a way it is trading. The resources from a certain continent that wouldn't be found on another, would be "traded" according to the needs of another continent, without obligation on the other side, in return for the same treatment from other continents. That's a harmonious system, and one that people would no doubt call impossible due to their cynicism.

4.) Automation and technological unification

Of course, you take monetary incentive away from menial labour and nobody will do it, right? True, but why the hell should people have to do 40 hours of menial labour a week just to survive? The resources and technology is around that means people don't have to do that. Money is what gets in the way. Their forced to do it, because they have to put themselves in debt in order to get a house, and thus have a shelter to stay alive in. Take a disadvantaged person that couldn't afford a college education, or grew up in a rough area, and through no fault of his own he is doomed to a dreary life, while some fat-stomached suit sits in a penthouse sipping champagne, the cost of which could've fed and entire family for god know's how long.

So, replace menial workers with machinery right? A tough solution to implement for sure, but possible. Nobody said it's a swift operation, change takes time, and change on this kind of scale could take decades, over a century even. After all, you've got generations of social conditioning to reverse. You go up to a person on the street and say "imagine a world without money", and they'd say it's crazy, it can't work - because they've never known anything different, they can't conceive any other way of society, and they don't recognise the sheer malleability of the human mind and it's massive susceptibility to environmental conditioning. The same person born in an upper class US home, would be completely different if he was born into a North Korean ploitical family.

---

As for it being a propaganda piece, I could care less what it's labelled, first and foremost I focus on the content, rather than finding a name to encompass the video as a whole. I still don't see the massive shortcomings of the current economic system being addressed outside of the suggestion that there's no conceivable alternative - and that's unacceptable to me.
Of course they want a transitional movement though, they're trying to make a difference to a world they see as flawed, unfair, and wrong and change it into something that focuses more on the wellbeing of humanity as a whole rather than personal individual acquisition. Societies have evolved over the millenia, who's to say it's not high time we evolved again, and take yet another step towards peace, and humanity's wellbeing. I for one am not content with keeping this current system indefinitely.

7 Billion people, what are they supposed to do? Well, upon accomplishing something along the lines of the Venus project for example, 7 billion people would be free to pursue their interests. Artistic, academic, sport, anything. People would share their work freely with everyone, and as such they in turn would have free access to the fruits of other people's work. You may think such a way is impossible, but I remind you, the monetary system is not necessarily the be all and end all of systems. Remember the power of environment on the human condition, in a world where financial stress does not exist, and the quality of life is so much better, people's priorities change. I guarantee you there are people in the world with no money, who live in a society that doesn't use currency, who are far happier and much more at peace than even some of the richest men alive are. The acquisition of wealth and the desire for it may seem like important driving forces behind our society, but they don't have to be.

The monetary system by nature is motivated to preserve itself, as the rich want to stay rich and get richer. If profit is the main motivator for a company's actions, they won't have any qualms deliberately causing scarcity to boost prices, or obstructing the development of new, cleaner methods that would make them obsolete. Take that E.coli bacteria thing and oil companies. If the virus thing worked perfectly, it would spell doom for oil companies, and even though it's in humanity's best interests to pursue the virus technology, oil companies would do all they could to obstruct it's development, because profit is their motivation, and humanity is secondary to profit. That's just one of the dangers and problems of a monetary system.

It's so handy for these people, that the economic and social problems caused by the monetary system are so complex and intricate that it eludes your average person. Slavery is an easy one, people know it's wrong because it's obvious, but the whole currency situation requires far more time and thought to commit to, and as such public support for the removal of the monetary system is hard to find. Combine that with conditioning, and you have billions of people content with a terribly flawed system because they don't even realise or think about the indirect repercussions of the system to the extent necessary.

It would be tough to work out all the details to ensure a working system, but there has to be better alternatives to capitalism. There's too much avoidable death and destitution in this world for us to sit on our laurels and be proud of our "developed" societies. It's easy not to care about it when it's not happening around you and you're on the advantaged side of the system. If the betterment of humanity was the motivation instead of money, instead of weaponry being created, you could build wells, hospitals, schools and basic infrastructure all over Africa and other areas of the world. We're sitting here on computers talking about the merits of capitalism vs. whatever, while the same system we're arguing about is indirectly responsible for someone in the world dying as you read this. I can't accept the gaping chasm that exists between what the world could be, and what it is, and I'd like to see attempts to bridge that gap sometime in my lifetime.

[Badpaladin]

What is the problem? Apart from it sounding absurd because we've lived with money our whole lives, do you honestly think that the monetary system is as good a system as we can come up with? Or even close to being a good one?

Yes, for absolutely obvious reasons. If you don't give things monetary value, you take out another key part of a society that progresses forward. What happens when Joe Nobody wants a Macbook Pro that he can't afford at the moment? He saves money, works a few more hours and eventually goes out and buys one, then he treats it well. Without a monetary system in place, he wouldn't have had to worked extra hours(hence less productivity overall), he wouldn't have set a goal other than "I'm going to walk over to the Mac Store and pick up my free Macbook Pro", and he wouldn't have treated it well because it would be worthless. Why treat a computer with care when you can just go pick up another one, free of cost?

There's no incentive or progress.

Outside of a piece of paper that only holds weight as long people accept that it does, you don't have any claim to the land of the Earth in reality and the physical world. You may think the deed to your house gives you ownership of land, but dominion over that land was not given to you by nature, it was given to you by man. To a species or even a group of people that refuse to recognise that deed, you don't own that property at all. Only amongst people that recognise this artificial order of things does your ownership of the land go recognised.

It's a shame that we, as humans, rule the world then. Obviously my house being mine doesn't mean anything to a stray dog, but I'm superior to the stray dog. It's that simple. Let's take it a step further: If man does not recognize that my house is mine, what is to keep him from sleeping in it as he pleases? Using my car? Using my food that, although was at no cost to me, I still had to bring to the house. What are the social ramifications of this? What's to stop somebody from borrowing my wife, or my kids(hypothetical, as I have neither at this supple age of 20). They're not legal property, but they're most definitely socially owned by each other.

Also, saying no property sounds like saying there would be no homes for people to live in. Of course there would be, it's just a joke to suggest that a human being has a legitimate claim to some land of the Earth, something that is common heritage. So instead of having properties ranging from palaces to mud huts, a massive discrepancy not justifiable in the modern world, you take away the inequalities caused by the monetary system by changing the system to something better, and fairer. Who cares about land and property and ownership, when the pursuit of happiness is about the betterment of society and life for every human, instead of personal acquisition?

Because personal acquisition is what drives society. People don't give a shit about the rest of the world and other people, they want things to be nice for them. People come second to self, and no failed social movement is going to change that.

Sounds worse than it is. Fair and logical management of the Earth's resources, distribution that's not influenced by wealth, would not only be better for the environment, but it would mean poverty would be abolished. Trade becomes unnecessary when resources are managed properly and fairly, there's no reason to barter when you have access to everything you need. Besides in a way it is trading. The resources from a certain continent that wouldn't be found on another, would be "traded" according to the needs of another continent, without obligation on the other side, in return for the same treatment from other continents. That's a harmonious system, and one that people would no doubt call impossible due to their cynicism.

It's a dream world that will never come true because humans are selfish by nature. Thinking otherwise is entirely wrong, no matter how you swing it. Do you know what system also managed resources(monetary and otherwise) properly and fairly? Leninism. Wow, that ended up well.

Of course, you take monetary incentive away from menial labour and nobody will do it, right? True, but why the hell should people have to do 40 hours of menial labour a week just to survive? The resources and technology is around that means people don't have to do that. Money is what gets in the way. Their forced to do it, because they have to put themselves in debt in order to get a house, and thus have a shelter to stay alive in. Take a disadvantaged person that couldn't afford a college education, or grew up in a rough area, and through no fault of his own he is doomed to a dreary life, while some fat-stomached suit sits in a penthouse sipping champagne, the cost of which could've fed and entire family for god know's how long.

Unfortunate consequences to a system that works. If you take away the incentive to work, man does nothing. A society of loungers does not accomplish any social, scientific or political growth. This is exactly what the Zeitgeist movement supports: let the machines do it.

So, replace menial workers with machinery right? A tough solution to implement for sure, but possible. Nobody said it's a swift operation, change takes time, and change on this kind of scale could take decades, over a century even.

Think of all the menial labor required to make a system like this work. If you've socially changed people to accept that machines should do the work for us, how again do we transition into an automated world to begin with?

As for it being a propaganda piece, I could care less what it's labelled, first and foremost I focus on the content, rather than finding a name to encompass the video as a whole. I still don't see the massive shortcomings of the current economic system being addressed outside of the suggestion that there's no conceivable alternative - and that's unacceptable to me.

Read my post again, because you most definitely missed the entire last paragraph. There's nothing about no conceivable alternative there, just realism about a system that indeed does work.

Of course they want a transitional movement though, they're trying to make a difference to a world they see as flawed, unfair, and wrong and change it into something that focuses more on the wellbeing of humanity as a whole rather than personal individual acquisition. Societies have evolved over the millenia, who's to say it's not high time we evolved again, and take yet another step towards peace, and humanity's wellbeing. I for one am not content with keeping this current system indefinitely.

Transitional movements don't work. Never have, never will.

--stuff--

The rich indeed want to stay rich, but the beauty of capitalism is you can't do that by doing the same thing over and over again. You need to innovate. Innovating requires paying your own money to ensure better workers create a more quality product, customers receive better service such that they will stay your customers and you can produce enough for people so you won't have such a high enough demand that people look elsewhere. If you don't do any of that, you ending up failing. In the end, the consumer got what they wanted and the producer did as well. It's a self-correcting system. Its flaws are also under heavy review, such as modifying the tax code to avoid paying federal taxes that some companies have gotten away with in the past years.

I can't accept the gaping chasm that exists between what the world could be, and what it is, and I'd like to see attempts to bridge that gap sometime in my lifetime.

Too bad, because it's impossible. The system we live in fosters and encourages growth. The ideal you believe in does the exact opposite.

[Tuvok]

Yes, for absolutely obvious reasons. If you don't give things monetary value, you take out another key part of a society that progresses forward. What happens when Joe Nobody wants a Macbook Pro that he can't afford at the moment? He saves money, works a few more hours and eventually goes out and buys one, then he treats it well. Without a monetary system in place, he wouldn't have had to worked extra hours(hence less productivity overall), he wouldn't have set a goal other than "I'm going to walk over to the Mac Store and pick up my free Macbook Pro", and he wouldn't have treated it well because it would be worthless. Why treat a computer with care when you can just go pick up another one, free of cost?

Bearing in mind the huge flaws of the system, how can you really say there's not a better alternative? Money is an integral part of this society, not all.
Joe Nobody could receive an iPad free, a contribution to society made by someone with different interests to Joe, while Joe would supply society with, let's say, a beautiful table he crafted from fine wood, as he pursued woodworking and carpentry, because it interested him - rather than it being a means to an end, a route to profit. As for progress, without the distractions of money, science would be able to progress unhindered. The scientific community is actually a good example of why money isn't necessary for motivation. I don't think theoretical physicists got into the field because they wanted the babes and the fast cars.

It's a shame that we, as humans, rule the world then. Obviously my house being mine doesn't mean anything to a stray dog, but I'm superior to the stray dog. It's that simple. Let's take it a step further: If man does not recognize that my house is mine, what is to keep him from sleeping in it as he pleases? Using my car? Using my food that, although was at no cost to me, I still had to bring to the house. What are the social ramifications of this? What's to stop somebody from borrowing my wife, or my kids(hypothetical, as I have neither at this supple age of 20). They're not legal property, but they're most definitely socially owned by each other.

I don't know why, but I was just highlighting that the notion of a human actually legitimately "owning" part of the Earth is a little...precarious. At least to me.

Because personal acquisition is what drives society. People don't give a shit about the rest of the world and other people, they want things to be nice for them. People come second to self, and no failed social movement is going to change that.

Personal acquisition is what drives this society. People are selfish? Yeah, in this society they certainly are, and to an extent every human has to be relatively selfish, but that doesn't mean all types of society have to revolve around selfishness and greed. I can't help but think you're underestimating the power of conditioning, if the structure of society demands selfishness in order to succeed, people will adapt to that, if happiness doesn't require selfishness, then there will be a lot less of it. In this society you have to be greedy and selfish, you have to want nice things for yourself and you don't have time to care about others, so of course people are going to be selfish. Put them in a different system altogether, and you may find that people aren't so selfish after all, unless the situation they're in calls for it. I wonder if, let's say, people were so inherently selfish and greedy in native American tribes for example. I bet those people were more at peace than we'll ever be.

It's a dream world that will never come true because humans are selfish by nature. Thinking otherwise is entirely wrong, no matter how you swing it. Do you know what system also managed resources(monetary and otherwise) properly and fairly? Leninism. Wow, that ended up well.

Defeatism due to an underestimation of the power of environmental conditioning, in my opinion, as wankery as that sounds (forgive me). you don't think it's possible because of your opinions on human nature, but I suggest that your opinion on human nature has been skewed by the limited example of the people in our society, and neglects to bear in mind other societies, and many possible societies.
I don't know anything about leninism, so I wouldn't even know where to start commenting on that, all I can say is that just because one person's methods of implementations or ideas may have been flawed doesn't that dooms all else to failure.

Unfortunate consequences to a system that works. If you take away the incentive to work, man does nothing. A society of loungers does not accomplish any social, scientific or political growth. This is exactly what the Zeitgeist movement supports: let the machines do it.

Unfortunate indeed. If you take away the incentive to do shitty work, that doesn't matter, because the machines are there to do it. The man is then free to pursue whatever field interests him. A far more fulfilling, and happy life than a minimum wage mcdonald's job. Yes, if you took all money away right now when we're nowhere near prepared for such an abrupt change, you would have loungers, because they're conditioned to the current form of society. However, in time, in an appropriate environment, money would've never even been a consideration for the people of the time and it would basically be "the social norm" for people to simply pursue their interests unhindered by financial worries. People interested in the sciences, medicine, botany, philosophy, everything would simply do it because they wanted to. You don't think it's possible for people to be like that, of course, but again I say - not in this society, but in the proposed one.

Think of all the menial labor required to make a system like this work. If you've socially changed people to accept that machines should do the work for us, how again do we transition into an automated world to begin with?

The transition doesn't necessarily have to be so forced and swift. It can be gradual or done in steps. Regardless of any societal change or not, machines will replace men and women menial labourers as time goes on anyway.

Transitional movements don't work. Never have, never will.

Perhaps not, it may not even be my desire for some kind of movement to take place. I think for anything like this to ever happen, you would probably need a full global scale economic collapse, and a lot of hardship to the people for them to finally question whether they're doing things right.

The rich indeed want to stay rich, but the beauty of capitalism is you can't do that by doing the same thing over and over again. You need to innovate. Innovating requires paying your own money to ensure better workers create a more quality product, customers receive better service such that they will stay your customers and you can produce enough for people so you won't have such a high enough demand that people look elsewhere. If you don't do any of that, you ending up failing. In the end, the consumer got what they wanted and the producer did as well. It's a self-correcting system. Its flaws are also under heavy review, such as modifying the tax code to avoid paying federal taxes that some companies have gotten away with in the past years.

You need to innovate? You don't have to, you can exploit, cheat, sell illegal drugs, or do all sorts of unsavoury things to get rich in the current system. Besides, innovate to what end? To release useless products that fill no purpose and then proceed to try and convince people that they need it through bombardments of advertisements? Christmas has been basically hijacked by consumerism. It pisses me off to see Christmas advertisements in October, I'll tell you that one for free. There's no grandness behind it at all, it's just pure money grubbing, and yeah, people sure do get innovative when it comes to money grubbing. The consumer only got what they think they wanted. The consumer may spend his whole life acquiring wealth and posessions, when is he going to ask himself if that's really what the pursuit of happiness should involve. Moreover, when are the poor dying outside in the cold, brought up in slums from day 1 going to get a chance at this big wonderful life?

Too bad, because it's impossible. The system we live in fosters and encourages growth. The ideal you believe in does the exact opposite.

We may just have to agree to disagree, you think growth and progress is impossible without monetary incentive, and in the current state of society I'd agree with you for the most part. I believe though that in the appropriate environment or society, that people's motivations would be different, and that growth and progress really could come without monetary incentive.

[KeatsIT]

Bafpaladin what are u missing imho is that this movie is not trying to demolish everything we have, just money and changing the economic way to live.

In a world like that u'll have an house ofc like anybody, food etc, its not ment to delete personal property. Its a way to divide in right halfs the pie we all have.
Laws will still be there, police judges 2 ... cos they will like doin that as a contribution to society, anybody could do a job he likes/good at it.
A job not retarded like putting cans into boxed and wrapping it lol, something usefull that u'll like doin

Its just a dream of share and receive without the classy diversity we have for the sake of 1% of population that wants more more more money cos they are drugs(money in this case) addict

Some single guys can move more money at will that an entire State (look at Bill Gates)

Its not a religion, cult or something like that bullshits

I'm Italian and the recent italian politic news can give u a hint of what i'm saying
This sistem is sick

We need change and i support this honestly

[jtgizmo]

I'd love to hear an actual substantiated rebuttal of his description on the failings of the mentioned economic system, instead of "it's conspiracy bullshit", and other such claims.

Do I have to again cite the site: http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist

Oh no... I must be mentally ill if I question the zeitgeist.