Custom Search
Zeitgeist Movies
Submitted by fyl on Fri, 2010/01/15 - 08:55.
I have recently watched two very interesting movies, Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist Addendum. Both are available for free on the Internet. I wrote up a review of Addendum on fylz.com.
The movies and, in particular, Zeitgeist Addendum, are about what is wrong with how the world works today and how a conversion to a resourced-based system would address most of the problems. The movie is only political to the extent that is explains why there is no political solution. It points out that technicians, not politicians, can and do solve all problems.
I bring it up here because, all too often, discussions about Nicaragua and how to fix the ills in Nicaragua can be addressed politically. Some people see a more Capitalistic approach as the answer, others a more Socialistic/Communistic as the answer. This movie first addresses this by explaining why there is no political system that will fix things.
The cooperative rescue effort in Haiti is a good example of a resource-based way of addressing a problem. Just from the participants in the effort, you can see that it is cooperation, not politics, that is helping.
If we can all step back from my political approach is right for Nicaragua positions for a bit, we can probably see how a resource-based system could address issues in Nicaragua as well as around the world. Whether you are a politician, a technician or just someone who sees that the current system isn't working, there is something in the movie for you.
- fyl's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Resource-based economy
I confess that I haven't watched the Zeitgeist movies. I have read the wikipedia summaries of them.
While trying to understand what a Resource-based economy (RBE) is, it seems that the Venus project and its creator are the authority. From reading that site, I have little hope for an RBE succeeding. If I understand correctly, it projects a future where: Resources are unlimited; People can request anything they want, and get it; and Computer make decisions about how to allocate resources to meet demand. Because no person lacks anything, we would no longer need laws, police, or prisons.
I have so many issues with this. First, what if everybody decides they want a trip to Mars. I know we have a lot of resources, but do we really have unlimited resources? What if everyone decides they want to try eating blue whale meat? What if everyone wants to vacation in Hawaii at the same time? If nobody chooses to work the farms, would robots be able to feed everyone? Second, I don't trust computerized voting systems, so I certainly wouldn't trust computers to run entire economies. Nor would I trust panels of "experts" to make critical strategic decisions without input from "the public". Third, some people will be jerks or bullies, no matter how plentiful everything is.
RBE sounds like techno-communisim, and I'm not a big believer in technology-as-salvation, nor in communism (it's a nice idea but seems incompatible with human nature). This section, at least, doesn't qualify as stepping away from politics.
I know there is more to Zeitgeist than RBE, but it is the part that jumped out at me as being something potentially interesting with which I wasn't already familiar. From what I have read about the rest of Zeitgeist, I probably agree with 3/7, am undecided or ambivalent on 3/7, and disagree with 1/7.
Fix everything?
A resource-based system will fix everything. As willy said, it is a shift. The "in the box" thinking is that "if we had the money, we could ...". We see a problem but we don't agree on the solution. For example, with significant income imbalance, you tend to see two very different ideas to address it:
Both put a new level of overhead into addressing the real problem. The resource-based approach is to actually address a scarcity.
The example I discussed in the review of "Addendum" is energy. Here is another: transportation. It is an interesting example because the suggested approach actually reduces energy usage and pollution. While there is more to the discussion, replacing airplanes with high-technology trains is a piece.
This doesn't mean what we see crossing the U.S. with 100+ year old technology but mag lev trains running in tubes at speeds faster than airplanes travel. They make a pretty good case for "we know how to do this now".
When I watched this it made me think of mass transit in Atlanta. There are no mag lev trains there but there is a mass transit system that seems to make sense for a large city. There is a north-south and an east-west monorail and the end of one is actually in the airport terminal. Then, from each train station, you can get a "free" (as you already paid for the monorail trip) bus pass for the buses that run short local loops. If you expand that such that Atlanta is one destination on a mag lev train system, you move yourself up a notch in transportation.
That's the technology side. The "activist" argument is that electric cars, mag lev trains and such are held back because there is more profit in current technology and depending on oil or some dumb-ass replacement such as alcohol from corn.
Fixing everything
I'm all for mass transit, and for appropriate application of best technologies.
My disagreement with RBE is at a more fundamental level: Are resources effectively infinite? If so, then by all means, we can build anything we want, any where we want, and anyone can use anything however they want anywhere, any time. I don't believe that. I think we would still need to make choices. Who gets to be the first person on Mars? Which million people get to live in Hawaii this year? Who gets to display the Hope Diamond on their mantle this week?
In the case you suggest, what if everyone wants a rail station within a half-mile of their house? With so many stops, the trip would take way too long. Ok, a PRT-like solution could fix that. What if I (and 1000 other people) only want to travel by myself in a 100-person vehicle? At some point, decisions have to be made. The three traditional methods are by a dictator, by who has the money, or by small-group consensus. RBE proposes turning the decisions over to a computer algorithm. But who programs the algorithm? Who chooses the weightings? Again, at some point decisions have to be made, by humans.
Have you read about solutions to these fundamental questions that I haven't seen yet?
Civilizational Shift
Most people I know are not ready to even talk about this, let alone experience it. Fortunately, they probably have some time to adjust, even years. But I have a feeling it's not going to be very pleasant for a lot of folks, especially the ones who have spent a lot of time anesthetized (and I'm not talking about illegal drugs here).
Great movies...
I have given copies to several people, most just sort of roll their eyes.
Maybe when that wallet full of Federal Reserve Note become worthless they may come around...
-Doug ©
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate