Placeholder Image

字幕表 動画を再生する

  • The Zeitgeist Movement

  • London, UK / July 25th 2009

  • The title of the presentation is "Where are we now?"

  • In my experience so far in attempting to promote the ideas

  • of the movement and the Venus Project, I find about 95% of the critics

  • tend to ignore the current state of affairs.

  • And in a detached manner, they simply criticize the abstracts

  • of what our proposed resolutions are

  • without ever reflecting on the train of thought

  • that was employed to reach those solutions.

  • So in response to this, I decided to simply focus on the information

  • which will, at a minimum, at least further compound the dire need

  • to get away from our current social practices

  • while also showing the logic that the Venus Project employs

  • to arrive at the conclusions and ideas that they do.

  • We're not just making things up. Jacque Fresco didn't just

  • creatively come up with ideas. He has a pivotal train of thought

  • and it has a near empirical basis.

  • First there's going to be an overview

  • of the movement, the tenets of the Venus Project.

  • In Part 1 we're going to elaborate even more

  • on the nature of our world monetary system and its consequences

  • while in Part 2 we will take a larger step back and consider the human condition

  • its cultivation and the effects of the social system at large.

  • Before I begin, please note that it was recommended

  • in the emails sent out that people read the Orientation Guide

  • or the Activist Video because

  • basically I'm going to move very quickly through a lot of this information

  • on the assumption that a lot of you are already familiar with some of it.

  • If you're not, don't be surprised if some things come as extremely foreign.

  • This lecture is actually part of two lectures.

  • The second lecture will be given sometime in the future to deal with the other section.

  • As you'll see, I deal with the first part

  • of the idea which is the fact that our social system is corrupt

  • and the second section is what the solutions are. We're not going to talk

  • about solutions specifically right now. We're going to talk about

  • the reasoning behind it.

  • The term "Zeitgeist" is defined as the intellectual

  • moral, cultural climate of an era.

  • The term "Movement" simply implies motion or change.

  • Therefore, the Zeitgeist Movement is an organization that urges change

  • in the dominant, intellectual, moral and cultural climate of the time

  • specifically to values and practices which would better serve

  • the well-being of the whole of humanity, regardless of race

  • religion, creed or any other form of contrived social status.

  • The Zeitgeist Movement in function exists as a communicative representation

  • of an organization called The Venus Project

  • which is essentially a conceptual and technological set of ideas

  • which constitutes the life-long work of industrial designer

  • and social engineer, Jacque Fresco.

  • Mr Fresco, along with his associate Roxanne Meadows, have been working

  • for decades to establish the technical methods and educational imperatives

  • which can transition society away from its current cycles of war

  • perpetual poverty and pervasive corruption

  • into an improved social design based on environmental alignment

  • practicality, peak efficiency, and most critically

  • a heightened standard of living, personal freedom and well-being

  • for not just one nation or class, but for the entire human family.

  • The ultimate materialization of these ideas

  • is in the form of a new social design

  • updated to present-day knowledge. And the design can be termed

  • a "Resource-Based Economy" (RBE).

  • In the words of Mr. Fresco

  • "We call for a straight forward redesign of our culture

  • in which the age-old inadequacies of war, poverty, hunger, debt

  • and unnecessary human suffering are viewed as not only avoidable

  • but also as totally unacceptable.

  • Anything less simply results in a continuation

  • of the same catalog of problems inherent in the present system.

  • In summary, a Resource-Based Economy utilizes resources rather than commerce.

  • All goods and services are available without the use of currency

  • credit, barter, or any form of debt or servitude.

  • The aim of this new social design is to free humanity

  • from the repetitive, mundane and arbitrary occupational roles

  • which hold no true relevance to social development

  • while also encouraging a new incentive system

  • that is focused on self-fulfillment, education

  • social awareness and creativity, as opposed

  • to the contrived, shallow, self-interested, corruption generating goals

  • of wealth, property and power which are dominant today.

  • The enabling foundation of this concept is the realization

  • that through the intelligent management of the earth's resources

  • along with the liberal application of modern technology and science

  • we have the ability to create a near global abundance on this planet

  • and thus escape the detrimental consequences generated

  • by the real and artificial scarcity and waste which is dominant today.

  • This reality can provably create a high quality of life for

  • the entire world population many times over.

  • The Venus Project takes into account something which has been long lost

  • in our modern, financially driven world

  • the fundamental building blocks of society

  • and the basic understandings required to maintain a person's emotional

  • intellectual and physical well-being.

  • All social systems regardless of political philosophy, religious beliefs

  • or social customs ultimately depend upon natural resources

  • as the initial step towards social functionality.

  • Concurrently, society itself is a culture machine.

  • In other words, it's a natural consequence

  • for a culture to support the values integral to the dominant institutions

  • of that society, regardless of the benefit of those values.

  • In other words, a society reaps what it sows.

  • If your society's foundation inherently supports self-interest

  • elitism, greed and dishonesty

  • then no one should ever be surprised when certain members of society

  • continuously fall into the extremity of murder

  • financial corruption or indifferent, selfish gain.

  • In other words, society is not only a product of the sum of its members values

  • paradoxically, it's also a generator of them for each new generation.

  • It should be no wonder that government perpetuates

  • nationalistic and patriotic values.

  • If they didn't, people might not support the state agendas or their wars.

  • It should be no wonder that the Catholic church perpetuates the idea

  • that humans are born into sin

  • otherwise, people might not show up to be saved.

  • And it should be no wonder

  • every major city on this planet is cloaked with corporate advertising

  • working to force materialism and inadequacy. Why?

  • Because otherwise, some people might just be happy with what they have

  • and not contribute to the profit and perpetuation

  • of a corporation or an economy.

  • Regardless, when it comes to cultural influence, nothing can hold a candle

  • to the vast psychological implications that have developed

  • due to the system of monetary finance.

  • Money, contrary to the attitudes of most of the world's populations today

  • is not a natural resource, nor does it represent resources.

  • In fact, by our standards of logic, money is only functionally relevant

  • in society, when natural resources

  • and the mechanisms of creation are scarce.

  • And thus, a system has emerged where people are given value

  • for their skills in exchange for their servitude

  • which can thus be used as a medium of exchange

  • for those supposed scarce resources.

  • Sadly, the culture is now fully indoctrinated into this frame of reference

  • and, like the rising sun, most could not even consider

  • any other possibility for our social functionality.

  • In fact, some have even redefined the relevance of money itself

  • by being conditioned to think that money represents choice.

  • That money somehow has something to do with democracy.

  • And the greatest illusion, that the monetary structure is a tool of liberty.

  • While money has indeed served

  • a positive role overall on the course of our social evolution.

  • Adaptation and change and improvement is still unstoppable.

  • The fact is, most of the original problems, which require the development

  • of the economic system we see today, are no longer pressing

  • due to the dramatic advancement of science and technology.

  • We now have the means to move in to a new paradigm

  • one where the negative by-products of our current social establishment

  • such as perpetual war, human exploitation, poverty

  • and environmental destruction are no longer tolerable.

  • What is advocated here is merely a next step in our social evolution

  • as dictated not by a person or group's opinion

  • but by statistics, trends, basic inference and extrapolation

  • all deduced by the scientific method.

  • Unfortunately, regardless of how logical, clear and obvious

  • new ideas may seem, the public still remains

  • on average...tremendous fear of any form of social change.

  • This is largely due to propaganda indoctrination

  • which has been pushed upon them by the established powers

  • which of course prefer the maintain their power.

  • These institutions range from religious organizations, to government, to business.

  • In fact, it really isn't the technical understandings

  • and implementations of the physical attributes

  • that comprise the Resource-Based Economy which is the problem.

  • We know we can do it, technically. We know it can happen.

  • The analysis has been extrapolated.

  • It is the outdated cultural values, such a testy subject.

  • The cultural values and the education barriers of our conditioned culture

  • is the most difficult aspect to consider

  • and that's one of the reasons I'm approaching this presentation as I have

  • because I want people to understand that we have to move somewhere.

  • This is where the Zeitgeist movement comes in!

  • We are not here to tell people what to think or believe.

  • We're here to spread statistical information

  • and socially positive value identifications

  • in hope of bringing people into an awareness

  • of the incredibly positive possibilities the future can hold.

  • Once these understandings are fully realized

  • I think most people will never be able to look at the world

  • in the same way again, and the problems we find as commonplace today

  • will become simply unacceptable, motivating change.

  • There are countless well-intentioned people

  • in activist organizations out there, and they keep popping up like weeds.

  • It's incredible to me how many of these there are

  • all admirable and amazing, and they're yelling at the top of their lungs

  • about the rampant problems and injustices in our world.

  • Yet, as you tend to find, very few actually offer any solutions whatsoever.

  • Those that do offer solutions, however, always frame those solutions

  • within the context of the current established system.

  • Very little regard seems to be given to the root structure

  • of our social design.

  • The Venus Project and hence the Zeitgeist Movement is different.

  • Our fundamental focus is finding

  • the foundational sources of our social problems

  • and working from that lowest common denominator to create solutions.

  • And when it comes to social corruption, poverty, environmental disregard

  • human exploitation, and most personal and social turmoil in the world today

  • an important realization is that most of these problems are not the result

  • of some particular company, some nefarious elite group

  • or some government legislation.

  • These are symptoms of the foundational problems.

  • And this is the ultimate realization when it comes to

  • how you look at the problems of the world today.

  • There is a massive superstitious basis out there:

  • It's us against them. That is

  • extremely poisonous to the development

  • because people are constantly looking for someone else to blame

  • when it's really themselves because they continue to perpetuate

  • the system that creates these things.

  • The real issue is human behavior.

  • And human behavior which will be addressed in this presentation specifically

  • is largely created and reinforced by the social patterns required for survival

  • as necessitated by the social system of a period.

  • We are products of our society, and the fact is

  • it is very foundation of our socio-economic system

  • and environmental condition which has created

  • the sick culture you see around you.

  • Our current system is based almost exclusively upon human exploitation

  • resource abuse and abundant waste.

  • It is simply what our system does.

  • As far as the infamous "they"

  • it is simply another social distortion

  • culminated and reinforced by our environment.

  • There is no singular "they".

  • In Zeitgeist I, I described "the men behind the curtain"

  • to the effect of a specific niche of economics

  • the ones that control most government policy, and those are the banks.

  • Banks have been running things forever

  • but that is still a product. These are still human beings.

  • We are dealing with negative tendencies.

  • The "they" syndrome is absolutely obsolete

  • and next time you hear anybody talking about "they"

  • please try to correct them. It's a religious mentality:

  • dualities, good and evil.

  • The bottom line is that we can spend the rest of our existences

  • stomping on the ants that mysteriously wander out from underneath the refrigerator

  • setting traps or laws

  • or we can get rid of the spoiled food behind it

  • which is causing the infestation to begin with.

  • This leads us to Part I: Monetary Dynamics and Its Consequences.

  • Here's an email I received from a PhD in economics

  • soon after the release of Zeitgeist Addendum.

  • "Dear Filmmakers, my son presented me

  • the first half of your film last weekend and asked me my opinion

  • on the opening section about the Fractional Reserve lending practices.

  • I'm a PhD certified economist of 12 years and teach macro-economics.

  • While I always was cognizant of the creation of money

  • and the sale of government bonds, I had never stepped back far enough

  • to see the larger issue your film presented.

  • I find it tremendously disturbing that the creation of value through debt

  • is indeed by all formal logic, an imposed condition of deficiency

  • and an instigator of public servitude.

  • I'm not sure what shocked me more

  • the fact that this is true, or the fact that after the many years of education

  • I have on the subject of economics this reality never even occurred to me."

  • While it seems counter intuitive to think that a person who should

  • by all social standards be an expert in a given field

  • due to their awards and credentials

  • very often especially in the purely intellectual arena

  • such exposure to set established curriculum

  • can really hinder someone's openness in a very powerful way.

  • You become cognitively blocked from new ideas and realizations

  • which, if you're outside of the existing framework that you understand

  • then you have no chance of even realizing it.

  • It has restricted your perception.

  • Jacque Fresco, who dropped out of school at the age of 14

  • has a great example regarding this perceptual point.

  • During the time that the Wright brothers were building a machine that could fly

  • expert physicists and engineers were busy writing books

  • about how it was impossible for man to ever fly in any meaningful way.

  • Apparently, the Wright brothers, who were bicycle mechanics

  • didn't read those books.

  • In other words, creativity will always serve you better than just book smarts.

  • With that in mind, let's step back and pose a very simple question

  • about the economic structure we all live in.

  • What are the lowest common denominators

  • required to perpetuate a market economy?

  • (1) Human labor must be sold as a commodity in the open market.

  • Outside of investment and inheritance nearly all money is obtained

  • through income, and income is derived from wages or profit

  • in some form of employment.

  • Therefore, there must always exist a demand for jobs

  • or the economy cannot operate.

  • (2) Money must be continuously transferred

  • from one party to another in order to sustain so-called economic growth.

  • This is done through constant or cyclical consumption

  • by virtually everyone in society.

  • Jobs are entirely contingent upon demand for production in some form.

  • If there's no demand for goods and services

  • there will be no demand for labor

  • and hence financial circulation would stop.

  • Needless to say these two aspects of the system

  • which are intimately connected, are absolutely paramount

  • to the functionality of the financial system.

  • If either one of them were substantially hindered

  • the integrity of the economy would be seriously compromised

  • or possibly be made entirely obsolete.

  • So given this reality

  • let's now hypothetically consider some variables

  • which could put these mechanisms in jeopardy.

  • In the first point, labor [is] sold as a commodity in exchange for money.

  • What if the human labor market became unnecessary

  • for the production of goods and services?

  • More specifically, what if automation technology and artificial intelligence

  • became advanced enough to allow for the replacement of perhaps

  • 40%, 50%, 60% of the human labor force?

  • At what point would such displacement, less employment

  • be considered too much for the system's integrity

  • and put it into question?

  • As far as the second point, the need for cyclical consumption

  • what if conditions arose where the circulation of money was severely stifled?

  • In other words, what if people simply did not

  • need to continually buy things?

  • What if, hypothetically, it was discovered that through

  • optimized techniques and resource management design and production

  • the most commonly purchased goods could either be made obsolete

  • by larger order renovations

  • or could have such extreme product efficiency

  • longevity, and near maintenance-free durability

  • that most items could last a lifetime without replacement or major repair.

  • Of course, this exact idea couldn't be applied to perishable items

  • such as food, but following the same train of thought

  • what if the cultivation and production of food was in such ease and abundance

  • through technology, obviously, that the supply and demand equation

  • made the value of such items utterly negligible.

  • To put these points in a different way, let's consider the classic economic

  • concept of "theory of value".

  • Everything in society, theoretically, is given a value

  • based on two considerations.

  • The scarcity or availability of the materials used

  • and the amount of human labor required to produce a good or service.

  • If material scarcity, both in terms of resource availability

  • and quality was not the issue

  • and human labor was not required to create a good or administer a service

  • then there would technically be no value.

  • As most of you in this room probably already understand

  • one of the greatest realizations of Jacque Fresco and the Venus Project

  • which should be one of the greatest realizations

  • for the whole of humanity at this point in time

  • is that neither of the scenarios presented are hypothetical.

  • Human beings are indeed being replaced

  • [or] becoming obsolete in the labor force

  • due to advancements in production technology.

  • Likewise, powerful new design advancements in production efficiency

  • and resource management reveal the profound possibility

  • of relative global abundance and peek product efficiency.

  • This can be proven through statistical analysis

  • and the inferential extrapolation of historical trends.

  • Obviously the corporations aren't out there telling you this.

  • You have to dig much deeper to find this information.

  • When it comes to production automation capabilities, today specifically

  • the first thing to consider is a statistical evaluation

  • of a phenomenon called technological unemployment.

  • Technological unemployment, which is the unemployment

  • caused by the use of machines as vehicles of labor

  • has continually and systematically forced relevant numbers of people

  • out of every single new emerging sector for the past 300 years.

  • Our current employment market is basically broken into three sectors:

  • Agriculture (including mining and fishing)

  • Manufacturing (tangible goods) and Service (intangible goods).

  • As a near universal social progression

  • all societies tend to follow the same developmental path

  • which takes them from a reliance on agriculture and extraction

  • towards the development of manufacturing, which is automobiles

  • textiles, ship building, steel

  • and finally towards a more service-based system.

  • Naturally, the only reason some countries are farther behind

  • in this process than others has to do with the affordability

  • of the technology required to make it move to the next level.

  • It's irrespective of social system or political disposition

  • as a scientific progression.

  • Let's consider this phenomenon using the United States as a proxy.

  • The United States is where a lot of my data comes from

  • but please note that this can be applied to any economy.

  • In 1860, 60% of Americans worked in the agricultural sector.

  • However today, due to advancements in machinery and automation, less than 1% [do].

  • Fortunately those technological advancements also gave a rise

  • to an emerging Industrial Revolution

  • and by 1950, 33% were employed in the factory-based manufacturing sector.

  • As of now, due to continual advancements in machine automation

  • it is less than 8%.

  • So considering that only roughly 9%...

  • (there's probably a few percent leeway depending on the analysis you use)

  • There's only 9% of Americans working in agriculture and manufacturing now.

  • Where did everybody else go? [They went to] the service sector.

  • The only thing that has saved the US labor market after the technological renovation

  • of the agricultural and manufacturing sectors is flight to the service industry.

  • From 1950 to 2002

  • US employment in the service sector went from 59% to 82%.

  • The service sector is the dominant employer of Americans today

  • along with all industrialized countries.

  • Of course, this begs the question:

  • Is this sector insusceptible to the wrath of technological unemployment?

  • Of course [it is] not.

  • With the advent and increasing of versatile computer technologies

  • we are seeing job displacement once again. This time in all service industries.

  • The replacement of tellers and cashiers with kiosks

  • the use of automated voice systems for phone service...

  • The Internet has completely redefined retail

  • not to mention full kiosk systems in physical market places

  • advanced food-prep machines, and even research done by automation these days.

  • As economist Steven Roach has warned "The service sector has lost

  • its role as America's unbridled engine of job creation."

  • As a unique example, in Germany, the first completely automated restaurant

  • is in operation. It uses kiosks for ordering and payment.

  • The food is served by a fully mechanized system.

  • There is zero wait staff.

  • There's no reason that this idea

  • could not be done with every single eating establishment in the world.

  • In fact, if one was to think creatively about the application of technology...

  • In isolation, you see pockets of things

  • where you see a news report about a certain technology

  • that can do certain things. If you were to apply those creatively

  • I don't see how 90% of the entire service industry

  • couldn't be wiped out tomorrow.

  • The only reason it hasn't been done is because the focus of society

  • is backwards when it comes to social progress.

  • To illustrate this point more so

  • let's stop thinking about technology in terms of unemployment

  • and consider it from the angle of productivity.

  • The most incredible relationship of all of this

  • is that the more technological unemployment increases

  • the more productive things become.

  • In the G-7 advanced industrialized countries

  • employment in manufacturing has been dropping

  • but manufacturing output has been rising. Here's the chart.

  • I think it's quite profound.

  • I love this:

  • "The truth is that the US manufacturing is doing quite well

  • in every way except the number of people it employs.

  • Furthermore, a few economists would judge the health or sickness

  • of any industry based solely on employment.

  • By that standard, agriculture has been the sickest industry of all

  • for decades because employment has declined.

  • Although farm productivity rose dramatically in the past century.

  • Industrial health is better measured by output

  • productivity, profitability and wages."

  • The person is completely forgetting one universal thing:

  • If human laborers are displaced, they cannot obtain purchasing power.

  • If they cannot obtain purchasing power they cannot

  • fuel the economy by consumption.

  • On that level it doesn't matter how productive we are.

  • No one can buy anything.

  • The phenomenon has been termed by some theorists as

  • "the contradiction of capitalism"

  • for not only is the obsolescence of the human labor force

  • the obsolescence of the consumer

  • the high level of output generated by technological efficiency

  • makes the corporate motivation to pursue such advanced means very strong.

  • Even though it is economically self-defeating over time.

  • In other words, regardless of the level of productivity

  • if people don't have jobs, they can't buy anything.

  • This very fact alone that productivity is inverse to employment

  • in all sectors, should be enough to want

  • a deliberate shift from the focus of human labor to a system

  • where technology is given the highest priority.

  • The system is literally denying peak production.

  • In a world where one billion are starving

  • I think that's extremely despotic

  • and this brings us to one of the most profound points of this talk:

  • the social intent.

  • Should the focus of society be to create and preserve jobs

  • or should the focus of society be to maximize production

  • and create abundance?

  • It is either one direction or the other. You can't have both.

  • Sadly, what you are seeing in the world today is

  • the deliberate withholding of social efficiency

  • for the sake of preserving the status quo.

  • I say that again because I want you guys to use that:

  • The deliberate withholding of social efficiency

  • is what our system does.

  • The main reason outside of employment pressures that you do not see

  • technology being liberally used for all purposes imaginable

  • including the generation of food, energy and material abundance

  • is because our financial system is based entirely

  • on perpetuation of scarcity and inefficiency.

  • Why? Because it is most self-preserving and profitable.

  • If a company makes a car that can last 60 years

  • without service and also runs

  • without the need of perpetual refueling for battery power

  • the after-market value of that car is virtually zero

  • and billions of dollars would be lost over time

  • due to the now obsolete consumer, all in auto-service market industry.

  • This could happen right now, again. Why doesn't it?

  • Because the economic system literally couldn't work

  • if it shifted its focus towards optimum efficiency.

  • Our entire system in an economic sense is based on constriction.

  • Scarcity and inefficiencies are the movers of money.

  • The more there is of any one resource, the less you can charge for it.

  • The more problems there are, the more opportunities

  • there are to make money. This reality is a social disease

  • for people can actually gain off the misery of others

  • and the destruction of the environment. It's called a moral hazard

  • in the insurance industry. The whole system is moral hazard.

  • Efficiency, abundance and sustainability are enemies

  • of our economic structure for they are inverse to the mechanics

  • required to perpetuate consumption.

  • This is profoundly critical to understand for once you put this together

  • you begin to see that the one billion people

  • currently starving on this planet

  • the endless slums of the poor, and all the horrors

  • in the culture due to poverty and depravity are not natural phenomena

  • due to some natural human order or lack of earthly resources.

  • They are products of the creation, perpetuation

  • and preservation of artificial scarcity and inefficiency.

  • To add insult to injury, this scarcity is not only perpetuated

  • in the markets of consumer goods and services

  • but also manifests in a way which influences

  • the behavior of the whole of society

  • through making sure that even money itself

  • is perpetually limited in supply.

  • As denoted in Zeitgeist Addendum, the Central Banks of the world

  • almost all create money out of debt, through loans.

  • These loans are produced with interest

  • yet only the principal is created in the money supply

  • creating a perpetual deficit in supply.

  • The debts generated by these loans

  • serve as virtual prison cells for the average citizen

  • keeping them willing to work off their debt

  • putting them in a perpetual state of obligation.

  • There's a word for that. It's called slavery, debt slavery.

  • The money isn't real. The interest sure isn't real.

  • The debt is not real. The whole thing is an illusion.

  • The whole world today is now stuck in the illusion

  • that there isn't enough money to do this or that.

  • 98% of the countries in the world

  • are actually in debt to other countries and banks.

  • As of 2009, it's been confirmed that the world

  • is in a state of recession, which basically means

  • massive monetary contraction.

  • In other words, the whole world is somehow short on cash.

  • Am I the only one who finds this absolutely unbelievable?

  • This stupidity is not only unbelievable, it's deadly.

  • The market and financial system as we know it

  • is diametrically opposed to development of peak efficiency

  • in order to perpetuate profit in the established order.

  • What is peak efficiency?

  • The highest form of technical efficiency known at a time.

  • Not the highest form of efficiency that is affordable

  • but the highest form of efficiency that is actually possible.

  • The question has never been "Do we have the money?"

  • The question has always been "Do we have the resources

  • and technical understandings to make it happen?"

  • That is all that has ever mattered.

  • Now, given all of this

  • it's easy to see how the public today finds it difficult

  • to assume that technology can provide abundance and peak efficiency

  • for there's very little in their day-to-day life that clearly illustrates this point.

  • Everything around them reinforces the idea

  • that scarcity in the world today is a natural problem.

  • Why? Because the pursuit of profit by industry always inherently limits

  • the quality of design for the sake of monetary preservation.

  • If a company wants to be competitive in the marketplace

  • they must find a balance between quality and cost

  • invariably denying quality.

  • It is impossible for a company to produce a product

  • with peak efficiency by the very nature of the game.

  • It would be too expensive to afford.

  • This is one reason why there is so much unhealthy food

  • and trash goods in our system.

  • When you consider the majority of people in society today

  • our lower middle class and below, you realize that the corporations

  • must reduce their production costs to meet the terms

  • of the affordability of the predominant demographic of the culture.

  • I live in Brooklyn, New York, in an area that is very very poor.

  • Within a six-block radius of my apartment

  • there are five of these 99-cent stores.

  • These are stores which sell products from the cheapest possible materials

  • and lowest possible efficiency that could ever be manufactured.

  • It's junk! Stuff that should have never been created to begin with.

  • Why is it there?

  • Because the people can't afford anything else.

  • Why can't they afford anything else? Because the market system also creates

  • and perpetuates social stratification

  • and the poor must exist in order for the rich to exist.

  • Therefore, the level of product efficiency today

  • is artificially and directly proportional

  • to the purchasing power of a target demographic.

  • Therefore, generally speaking, one's perception of quality

  • is often only as good as their socio-economic status.

  • The quality of goods are stratified, just as the social classes are.

  • The result is outrageous amounts of resource waste.

  • In the world that claims to be growing more and more concerned

  • about environmental issues, resource supplies

  • man-made atmospheric changes and pollution, I find it fascinating

  • that no one is talking about the most consistent destroyer of ecology

  • and the most continuous waster of natural resources there is:

  • the pursuit of profit.

  • Capitalism is based on the free-pursuit of profit

  • by whatever means necessary.

  • I was in a cab coming here and the cab-driver made a great comment.

  • He was describing something along the lines of business he was conducting.

  • He said "Yeah, there's no friends in business."

  • And he's absolutely right. I'm going to be using that one too.

  • Capitalism is based entirely on the free pursuit of profit

  • by whatever means necessary. It is a gaming strategy

  • and nothing more. The irresponsibility it enables

  • by its central philosophy of self-interest is profound.

  • And while there are many angles at this, let's stay with the point at hand:

  • The deliberate production of inferior products.

  • Think about it. It is as environmentally illogical as it can be.

  • There is no reason to ever create a product that is deliberately low in efficiency.

  • This simply means faster break down, faster obsolescence

  • more duplicate production and many times more waste and pollution

  • than would be required if the goal was to simply optimize products

  • based on the most current technological awareness of the day.

  • And this leads us to the final topic of this section: Market Mythology.

  • So far we've talked about the structural mechanics of the system

  • pointing out the inherent contradictions and problems.

  • As of now, through the overpowering growth in science and technology

  • the monetary system can be considered structurally obsolete

  • serving only as a paralyzing hindrance of social progress

  • not to mention a destroyer of trust, human trust in the environment.

  • That's a whole different topic in and of itself.

  • Unfortunately, the social indoctrination within the market system

  • has created a mentality which blindly supports the social dogma

  • regardless of what we have touched upon.

  • The identity relationships are simply too strong.

  • In many ways, it's like a religion. Taking away the belief

  • in the market system is like taking away someone's belief in God

  • for it challenges who they are.

  • When you're a little kid, you pull on your mother's pants.

  • You want candy and she might say: "No, we can't afford that".

  • It's this instant indoctrination of the monetary system

  • from the earliest form of life because obviously

  • your parents are always struggling to a certain degree.

  • It becomes absolutely built in to your psychology

  • not to mention that those that have successfully acquired

  • a great deal of wealth...

  • They will almost always be inclined to tell you that "the system is great".

  • That's just the nature of behavioral reinforcement.

  • The three most dominant of these psychological indoctrinations

  • that I want to talk about are the notions of property

  • incentive and associations with freedom of choice.

  • Starting with property:

  • The capitalist economy is founded on the very idea of exchanging property

  • in the markets. Even your labor is a form of property in a sense.

  • The world that we know is so bound up in the process of buying and selling

  • that most of us can't imagine any other way of functioning human affairs.

  • Property is often associated with so-called "rights" as well.

  • We use a legal system to protect our property

  • and if anyone interferes with what is mine

  • their freedom can possibly be taken away.

  • In fact, there's even an entire industry which is there to tell you

  • what the best property there is to own. It's called advertising, of course.

  • Yet, with all of this obsession over property, very few ask the question:

  • "Why do we have property to begin with?"

  • The answer is simple: It's scarcity.

  • Property is an outgrowth of scarcity.

  • The farther we go back in time the more difficult and time-consuming it was

  • for people to create tools or extract a resource.

  • They, in turn, protected it because it had an immense value relative

  • to the labor entailed along with the possible scarcity associated.

  • People claim ownership because it is a legal form of protection.

  • Property is not an American or free-enterprise or capitalist idea.

  • It is an ancient mental perspective necessitated from generations of scarcity.

  • If there isn't scarcity, rationale for property

  • becomes an irrelevant issue.

  • Let's move on to the idea of incentive.

  • As the theory goes, the need profit provides a person or organization

  • with a motivation to work on new ideas and products

  • that would sell on the market place.

  • In other words, the assumption is that if technology replaced humans

  • in the workforce and abundance could be created

  • then people would just have no motivation to do anything socially relevant.

  • "No monetary incentive, no progress" is the idea.

  • There are two glaring issues with this assumption:

  • The first is that it's entirely based on projected values

  • and the values are almost entirely based on culture.

  • Nikola Tesla, Louis Pasteur, Charles Darwin, and The Wright Brothers

  • Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton did not make their massive contributions

  • to society because of material self-interest.

  • Did Martin Luther King walk down the street in Birmingham, Alabama

  • while a bunch of racists threw rocks at his head

  • because he was on his way to cash a check?

  • If the incentive motivation theory held true

  • then you would see no volunteerism in the world today.

  • Amazingly, in the 1992 US Gallup Poll, it was found that more than 50%

  • of American adults volunteered time with no pay for social causes

  • on an average of 4.2 hours a week

  • for a total of 20.5 billion hours a year.

  • This is pretty amazing, especially with a lack of social capital

  • in a place like the United States which is the most powerful free-market

  • country there is. The ideology is the most ingrained.

  • I find that to be pretty incredible.

  • Even with the sickness of self-interest, generated by the monetary system

  • even with this sickness, humans still strive to help each other

  • and give to society without reward.

  • What's even more amazing is that the poor and the middle class

  • are more likely to volunteer than the wealthy.

  • Think about that. These are the people that have the least amount of money.

  • It makes you understand the cultural and psychological nuances

  • that are created: The more money you get, the more diseased

  • you might possibly become. It's a fascinating phenomenon.

  • The second thing to consider is that while it is true

  • that useful inventions and methods do come

  • from the motivation for personal gain, the intent behind those creations

  • has nothing to do with human or social concern

  • for the incentive goal is not to improve humanity but to make money.

  • There is a massive disconnect, and as we have denoted thoroughly

  • the very means by which money is obtained in our system

  • is counter to social progress fundamentally

  • for it is based on the deliberate withholding of efficiency.

  • And, by the way, I haven't even addressed the traditional corruption

  • that we see occurring on a daily basis based and derived

  • from this incentive for income which spreads like a malignant cancer

  • of an indifferent self-interest

  • from product dishonesty, murder, fraud, theft, slave labor

  • outsourcing, price fixing, monopolistic collusion, redundant waste

  • environmental exploitation, illegal taxation

  • institutional theft, societal indifference, imposed psychological distortions

  • or advertising, and of course, the sickest monetary incentive

  • ever created, war!

  • That is the reality of the monetary incentive.

  • And the final myth for now: The Freedom of Choice.

  • The free market is very persuasive for most people

  • because it appears that the possibilities are endless

  • and that they, the individuals, have limitless choices.

  • People witness the vast stratification of goods and services

  • portrayed by the media and advertising and think that since

  • the options just exist in abstraction

  • it has some form of relevance to the freedom of the individual.

  • They can walk into a store and choose between 25 kinds of detergent

  • and 75 kinds of sugar-coated cereal

  • yet they turn a blind eye with the fact that their lives are managed by

  • on average, two political parties.

  • They pay no attention to the reality that 40%

  • of the world's wealth is owned by 1% of the population

  • and thus 99% of the world's people will never obtain

  • the luxuries afforded by the 1%.

  • More specifically, everyone seems oblivious to the reality

  • that nearly every day of your life, you are forced by the obligation

  • of mere survival and, of course, debt which is imposed

  • into a private dictatorship

  • where most of your decisions are controlled by those on the next

  • artificially created hierarchical degree

  • the next larger hierarchical degree.

  • It's amazing to me when you talk to economists

  • and they say "Well, people have a choice of where they work."

  • They only have a choice of where they work within a specific frame

  • that is allowable based on their demographic of education.

  • And of course, there's so many friend orientations in business.

  • Their ultimate fantasy is that anyone can be a President in the United States.

  • This is something that has been perpetuated.

  • These are groups that perpetuate themselves: elitism.

  • Elitism works in the same way in the corporate world.

  • You are absolutely restricted.

  • You have no freedom because you are forced to do the work as it is.

  • It's amazing to me and I get this argument a lot from high-end economists.

  • They say "You have freedom of choice. You can choose where you work".

  • No, you really can't.

  • When you get out of college there's this wall of jobs.

  • You can find your slot. And that's about it. That's your choice.

  • It's preset choice.

  • So I ask you: What freedoms are we talking about?

  • You are only as free as your purchasing power will allow you to be.

  • And the statistics have proven that the socio-economic rank you are born into

  • tends to persist for the rest of your life.

  • If you are born poor, you will likely remain poor.

  • Why? Because all the odds are against you.

  • If you are rich, you will likely remain rich. Why?

  • Because all the odds are in favor. It is the nature of the system.

  • For example, if you have one million dollars and put it into a CD

  • at 5% interest you are going to generate 50,000 dollars a year

  • simply for that deposit. You are making money off money itself:

  • paper being made on top of paper, nothing more.

  • No invention. No contribution to society. No nothing.

  • That being denoted, if you were lower to middle class

  • who is limited in funds and must get interest-based loans

  • to buy your home or use credit cards

  • then you are paying interest into the bank

  • which the bank is then using, in theory, to pay the person's return

  • with the 5% CD.

  • Not only is this equation outrageously offensive due to the use of usury

  • or interest to "steal from the poor and give to the rich"

  • but also perpetuates class-stratification by its very design:

  • keeping the lower classes poor, under the constant burden of debt

  • and servitude, while keeping the upper classes rich

  • with the means to simply turn excess money into more money.

  • The very idea that you can take money and turn it into more money

  • is absolutely hilarious

  • and corrupt.

  • Likewise, it should be no surprise

  • that the world is run by cartels and government collusion

  • for competition is based on nothing more than a gaming strategy

  • as we have said. In other words, competition breeds corruption.

  • It's another one of those economist things where they say

  • "Oh, the free-market used to be great, but something happened

  • and now we have all these cartels." No.

  • Monopoly is the final stage of success in a competitive environment.

  • It is incredible how people don't realize this.

  • It doesn't matter how much legislation you have to combat

  • sector or industry dominance. It will keep occurring.

  • Even more powerfully, government coercion

  • by big business is also unstoppable.

  • It is a natural progression of market strategy

  • to get government on your side.

  • In fact, the true propensity of our world economic system

  • continually, year by year, approaches one thing

  • fascism. Or more specifically, inverted fascism.

  • This is the condition where corporations covertly control government policy.

  • This is the natural gravitation.

  • So, as time continues to move forward and you keep looking back

  • it seems like things always get worse. And they do.

  • And this leads me to Part 2: Culture and the Bio-Social Imperative.

  • This is a detour now. I hope that first section...

  • If you have any questions, keep them in mind, as we go to the Q&A.

  • In this section we're going to address some issues

  • regarding our physical and social selves.

  • This is very relevant to me, and I think very relevant to the whole argument

  • and unfortunately most never think of this subject at all.

  • In order for us to consider routes of social change

  • we must also have a clear understanding of conditioning

  • our biology, and our relationship to the environment.

  • As denoted before, when it comes to the pursuits of social change

  • the most profound hurdle is overcoming the traditional ideology

  • identifications and dogmas, which have been set in stone as final

  • by the established culture.

  • Of these ideas, a consistent one that comes up

  • has to do with the conclusion that the human being is a rigid

  • fixed nature, whereas certain behaviors are simply immutable.

  • Therefore, as the logic goes, social structures are locked into a set pattern

  • which cannot be overcome due to the very nature of the species.

  • In order to address this claim we need to first consider the ramifications

  • of culture itself.

  • The word culture, in a social sense, is defined as a set of shared attributes

  • values, goals and practices

  • that characterizes an institution, organization or group.

  • The most obvious, yet often overlooked example of the mechanics of culture

  • is the fact that we are provably shaped by the sort of society we live in.

  • The language we use, the gaming strategies you execute for survival

  • the perception of beauty you lust for, the familial patterns

  • and traditions that you perpetuate and the deeply held theology:

  • myths and urban legends that define your broadest view

  • are all examples of the qualities you might absorb

  • arbitrarily, in the culture you have been born into.

  • In fact, if you dig deeper, you find

  • that there's really nothing that we cognitively think and believe

  • which isn't first presented to us in some environmental form.

  • An insulted man who pulls out a gun and shoots somebody had to learn

  • at some point of his life, what a gun was, how to pull the trigger

  • along with what he was to find insulting to begin with.

  • Every word that I'm saying has been learned one way or another.

  • Every concept relayed is a collective accumulation of experience.

  • A Chinese baby taken at the birth and raised in a British family in England

  • will develop the language, dialect, mannerisms

  • traditions and accent of the British culture.

  • Needless to say, it is obvious the profound effect the environment has on behavior.

  • But that's only part of the equation

  • for we are obviously biologically defined as well.

  • Doesn't matter how much time I try to condition a cat

  • to learn to speak English, it simply can't.

  • Simply due to limitations of its evolutionarily derived biological state.

  • Those limitations are basically defined by genes.

  • Genes are a fairly recent discovery and there's been a great deal of speculation

  • as to the spectrum that genes hold.

  • The spectrum of relevance that genes hold.

  • The most contentious is in the realm of behavioral biology.

  • This is a field dedicated to understanding how genetics influences behavior.

  • The idea that genetics are the possible source of various behaviors

  • became popular in about the 19th century.

  • One of the first pursuits that emerged was the idea

  • that the aberrancies of the human behavior, such as criminality

  • could be explained by the person's genes. The old "criminal gene" idea.

  • Sickly enough, even eugenics operations in the form of sterilization

  • took place many years ago in an attempt to rid society

  • of "criminals, idiots, imbeciles, and rapists".

  • The implications is that certain people are naturally

  • "bad people" due to their genetics.

  • You see this rhetoric everywhere. Someone might say "He has bad blood."

  • or "She's just a evil person."

  • As an aside, I find it fascinating that this simplistic

  • social fall back to explain a person's behavior

  • is in full accord with the primitive superstitious duality postulated

  • by nearly all established religions: Good and Evil.

  • The gene in this case has replaced

  • the satanic demon that once possessed the person

  • and thus the person has no control over their evil actions.

  • In other words, they are slaves to their genes.

  • As research has progressed, it has been found that genes do nothing at the sort.

  • Genes are stretches of DNA that produce proteins

  • which, of course, are vital to the operation of the brain

  • the nervous system and the whole body.

  • However, they are not autonomous initiators of commands.

  • They do not cause behaviors in any real sense of the idea.

  • In the words of professor of biology and neurology at Stanford University

  • a well-known anthropologist as well, Dr. Robert Sapolsky

  • "Genes are rarely about inevitability especially when it comes to humans

  • the brain and behavior. They're about vulnerability

  • propensities and tendencies."

  • As it turns out, the determining factor of genetic propensities

  • particularly in the realm of behavior is the environment

  • that the organism resides in.

  • For example, recent research has shown that a gene could exist for depression.

  • However, just because you have that gene

  • does not mean you're going to get depressed.

  • It takes some form of dramatic environmental stress

  • to trigger the genetic response such as a sudden death of a loved one

  • or something very severe.

  • In other words, the environment triggers the existing genetic propensity.

  • Even with the genetic predisposition to particular illness

  • there's no guarantee you're going to get it.

  • A chair with a broken leg is not dangerous if you never sit on it.

  • As a variation of this, it is interesting to know

  • how the environment even affects broad physiological attributes

  • a realm traditionally left for the genetic side of the nature and nurture debate.

  • A study was done a few years ago at the Miami School of Medicine

  • with premature infants in neonatology wards

  • where they decided to simply touch a section of the infants in the wards.

  • a few times a day, while the other section was not touched.

  • All feeding patterns remained alike, everything else equal.

  • As it turned out, the infants that were touched grew 50% faster

  • and were noticeably more healthy.

  • They were released from the hospital a week early.

  • When compared months later, these same kids showed better health

  • and agility than those that were not touched. It's incredible.

  • It's a dramatic finding on many levels, for it shows

  • that the genetically prescribed growth hormone release

  • can be profoundly influenced by a simple

  • and subtle environmental experience.

  • Further more, the environment can not only trigger genetic propensities

  • or influence their extent, it can over-ride them to a certain degree.

  • A couple of years ago, another study was done in Princeton University

  • where scientists were able to genetically engineer mice

  • removing a key gene relevant to their neurotransmitter system

  • selectively targeting learning and memory.

  • As a result, the cultivated mice were poor

  • at various memory and learning exercises.

  • They had trouble recognizing simple objects.

  • Their accuracy of smell was poor and they were unable to learn well

  • in many ways which otherwise would be normal to an average mouse.

  • Once their disability was confirmed and established

  • the scientists then put the cognitively dim mice as adults

  • in an enriched, stimulating environment.

  • And over time it was found that many of the genetically engineered

  • learning disabilities were actually overcome by the simple exposure

  • to an intellectually nurturing environment.

  • In other words, the environment is actually able to re-establish

  • neurological pathways that seemed not to exist.

  • Again, this is a powerful testament to the power of the environment

  • when it comes to brain and hence behavior.

  • We're perpetually molded and shaped by what's around us

  • and it has an extremely direct effect on our genes

  • our genes and what might be inherent to us. It's very important.

  • The reason this is being brought up is to illustrate the fact

  • that our environment is provably the most important determinant

  • in our functionality.

  • Nurture, in many ways, dictates nature.

  • On many levels, ranging from behavior to psychology, excuse me, to physiology.

  • (psychology wouldn't have a relevance) but to physiology

  • and health. Consequently, it is incorrect to think

  • that the human being is a slave to his biology.

  • Especially when it comes to his or her actions.

  • This is a powerful myth which needs to be dispelled and debunked

  • for when we realize the importance of our environment

  • we'll be much more prone to changing it. That's why I'm talking about this.

  • In isolation, it might seem that these are abstractions

  • but we have to learn that biologically, we are only as relevant

  • as the environment which interacts with our biology.

  • However, as one final example worth considering

  • which, from my perspective, summarizes the overwhelming power

  • and relevance of our environmental culture we're exposed to

  • let's consider the implications of feral children.

  • A feral child is a human child which has lived

  • isolated from human contact from a very young age.

  • Isolated from society or human society.

  • Historical examples of this range from children

  • that have been locked in rooms by their parents for years

  • to children who have been abandoned in the wild and raised, so to speak

  • by animals.

  • This is Genie. She was discovered in 1970

  • having been locked in a single room virtually alone for ten years.

  • When they found her at 13 years old, she could barely understand language

  • and she knew only a few words. She was 54 inches tall.

  • Her eyes could not focus beyond 12 feet

  • and she walked in an awkward, hunched manner

  • and she could not chew solid food.

  • Once rescued, psychologists and scientists immediately began working

  • to rehabilitate Genie, creating a nurturing environment

  • and she quickly began to overcome a great amount of the problems

  • that she had had, but due to the severe mental scars

  • that she went through, something very specific stuck out

  • which has a specific relevance to the point I'm trying to make

  • and that was her inability to learn language.

  • While humans obviously have a genetic predisposition for language

  • it is cases like this that show how the environment does not...

  • If the environment does not engage those propensities

  • at a certain point in time

  • then those language capabilities will not form.

  • It requires the environment to stimulate the effect.

  • That's a very important thing, and I may keep reiterating that.

  • This young girl was rescued in May of this year in Russia.

  • She was locked in a room with dogs and cats for several years

  • causing her to behave like an animal. She could not speak.

  • She lapped up her food, drank with her tongue and she walked on all fours.

  • She was five years old when they found her, but her physical size was only

  • that of a two-year old.

  • This is fascinating, apart from being horrific.

  • It's the fact that feral children can pick up and imitate things

  • in their environment that to us would seem absolutely unhuman.

  • This is a girl named Oxana Malaya.

  • She was also extremely neglected and ended up

  • spending the majority of her childhood between the ages of 3 and 8

  • 5 years living with dogs in the back of the family home.

  • She actually slept in the kennel with the dogs for 5 years

  • and when rescued, she had adopted incredible canine mannerisms

  • including barking, a higher than average sense of smell and hearing.

  • She ate raw meat. She walked on all fours and knew virtually no language.

  • It is sociological examples like this that should really make one step back

  • and question the lowest common denominator

  • of what is supposed to be "human nature".

  • Please understand that there is no denial

  • that we human beings are "wired" in a particular way.

  • However, the fact is we obviously, especially at a young age

  • have an incredible ability to adapt to our environment.

  • We are exceptionally malleable

  • and as studies have shown, we'll adapt based on what is supported

  • and reinforced by the social condition we inhabit.

  • If the known propensities of human beings such as walking upright

  • learning language and the like are not triggered

  • and supported by the environment, then they might not manifest.

  • Therefore again, the human being is very much a cultivated organism.

  • The quality of a person's health and behaviors

  • really comes down to the quality of the environment

  • culture and social influences they are exposed to.

  • This is critical that society fully understand this and adjust accordingly.

  • It should be no wonder the world we live in

  • when we examine the system, the environment that creates us.

  • And this is the point:

  • We, as so-called individuals

  • are running composites of our life experiences.

  • We are walking expressions and cultivations of the environments

  • we have passed through up until this very moment.

  • And when it comes to survival, only those behavioral attributes

  • that have served a function in your environment

  • are reinforced and made dominant.

  • Once you understand this, the corrupt world around you

  • suddenly makes perfect sense.

  • Human beings are not inherently greedy

  • or inherently competitive or inherently corrupt.

  • It is the social system. It's the environment that creates us.

  • Just as a young girl will choose to walk on all fours

  • and bark because that's what the environment makes similar to her

  • we become corrupt, and we become self-interested

  • because that's what our culture has created and put upon us.

  • The social imperative that emerges on all of this in the long run

  • is that there is a great deal of care which needs to be taken

  • in regard to our social environment.

  • We must alter the system in such a way so it does not create

  • support or reinforce those behaviors which are socially harmful.

  • And that's what social design is about.

  • It's interesting to point out

  • and this takes me to a sub-section of this:

  • It's interesting to point out that competition and hierarchy

  • which seem dominant today

  • have not been the dominant ethos of human society

  • for the majority of our time on this planet.

  • Before the agricultural or neolithic revolution

  • which occurred about 10,000 years ago, hunter-gatherer societies

  • actually had a non-hierarchical, egalitarian social structure.

  • The social values were based essentially on equality

  • altruism, sharing and literally forbid

  • upstartism, dominance, aggression and egoism.

  • We know this because of the anthropological research that has been done

  • on remaining hunter-gatherer societies over the course of the past century.

  • I find this fascinating, that for the bulk of our existences

  • as the human species, 99% of our societies have been virtually

  • non-hierarchical, non-materialistic.

  • They have had the wisdom to appreciate a minimalist affluence

  • as opposed to the dominance-driven, excessive

  • and unsatisfied culture we see today.

  • Regardless, this historical reality puts into question

  • the notion that social hierarchy is a natural human tendency.

  • What it is, is a social condition that has been created.

  • In the view of Robert Sapolsky:

  • "Hunter-gatherers have thousands of wild sources of food to subsist on.

  • Agriculture changed all of that

  • generating an overwhelming reliance on a few dozen food sources.

  • Agriculture allowed for the stockpiling of surplus resources

  • and thus, inevitably, the unequal stockpiling of them

  • stratification of society and the invention of classes.

  • Thus it has also allowed for the invention of poverty."

  • The core basis of social hierarchy

  • is real, or perceived, scarcity.

  • Social hierarchy is a formalized system of inequality

  • which serves as a substitute for perpetual conflict

  • over scarce resources.

  • In view of our Western society which, as we have denoted

  • works to literally preserve scarcity

  • it's easy to see how our social classes are perpetuated unnecessarily.

  • But the problem doesn't stop there. Another consequence

  • which is very new, has to do with the chain of causality.

  • One that affects everyone of us in a way that is almost hidden

  • and that is to do with the effect it has on our health.

  • Studies have shown that people of higher socio-economic status

  • live longer, enjoy better health and suffer less from disability

  • while those of lower socio-economic classes die younger

  • and suffer the largest burden of disease and disability.

  • This most often comes in the form of a gradient meaning that

  • from the highest upper classes, straight down the lowest bottom classes

  • each successive step up or down the socio-economic ladder

  • constitutes a respective quality change in a person's health on average.

  • On the surface this would seem absolutely logical, right? Just makes sense.

  • In the sense, lower classes often have poor diets due to lack of purchasing power.

  • They're more prone to live in polluted areas.

  • They are more likely to get sub-par health care

  • and due to lack of education, they might not take care of themselves

  • in the best way.

  • Now, while these attributes are obviously relevant to health

  • new studies have shown that there is something else going on

  • that is contributing to the increasingly poor health

  • and disease propensities of people

  • the lower they go in the social hierarchy.

  • One of the most documented studies that has been done on this issue

  • has been called "The Whitehouse Studies", done here in London

  • at the University College of London.

  • Using the British Civil Service system as a subject group.

  • They found that the gradient of health quality in industrialized societies

  • is not simply a manner of poor health

  • for the disadvantaged and good health for everyone else.

  • Something else was happening.

  • Remember this is the UK where health care is socialized

  • and theoretically you have equal health care.

  • They also found there is a social distribution of disease

  • meaning that as you went from the top of the socio-economic status

  • to the bottom, the types of the diseases people would get

  • would change on average, but they'd be linked.

  • For example: The lowest rungs of the hierarchy had a 4-fold increase

  • of heart disease-based mortality, compared to the highest rungs.

  • I think if I remember correctly, the highest ones were things like melanoma.

  • You know, people sitting on their yachts

  • which I thought was quite amusing.

  • Regardless, this is the pattern and to a certain degree.

  • It's irrespective of health care, keep this in mind.

  • Disease is being generated irrespective of socialized health care.

  • Even in a country with universal health care, the worse

  • a person's financial status, the lower they are in the social hierarchy

  • the worse their health appears to be getting.

  • Why is this? As it turns out

  • psychological stress

  • generated from social inequality.

  • Not the by-products of inequality such as poor nutrition

  • health care resources or education for a person's health, but inequality itself:

  • psychological subordination.

  • Concurrent research, done by Richard Wilkinson at the University of Nottingham

  • found that the more income inequality there is in a society

  • the worse the gradient of health and mortality rates.

  • This is irrespective of absolute income

  • and again it has nothing to do with health care or nutrition.

  • Evidently, the more income inequality that exists in a society

  • or in other words, the more stratified a society is

  • the more money that's divided between the culture

  • the more health problems that occur in the upper

  • and lower classes together. It isn't about money in and of itself.

  • It's about the psychological ramifications, the psychological stress

  • or "psychosocial stress" generated by the social hierarchy itself.

  • Not to mention as an aside

  • it is also well documented that the more income inequality

  • that exists, the more crime.

  • Assault, robbery, murder are probable.

  • Not the more poverty and deprivation

  • that causes this, the more inequality.

  • Does everyone understand that? It's a very interesting point.

  • This is easy to exemplify, for the United States

  • which has the largest income gap on the planet

  • also has the largest crime rate in the world

  • the largest prison population in the world and amusingly

  • we're also the most aggressive and armed nation in the world.

  • Go figure!

  • The bottom line is that when it comes to the comparison of hierarchy

  • to egalitarianism, in other words, people being equal

  • or people being stratified, egalitarianism or equality

  • when it comes to psychologically stress-driven health

  • trumps stratification

  • for the whole of society from crime to disease rates.

  • In conclusion to this section, I hope I've made this relatively clear.

  • It's a really important point when you think about it.

  • Not only are social classes modern inventions of human society

  • social classes are scientifically proven

  • to be detrimental to the health of everybody

  • by the very construct of its creation.

  • I think, in conclusion of this formal presentation

  • that that is one of the most incredibly compelling motivations to seek alternatives.

  • The very fabric of the larger order of society

  • is intrinsically and provably, unhealthy.

  • And, coupled with everything else that we've talked about

  • I think that adds a tremendous weight to moving forward into something new.

  • www.thezeitgeistmovement.com

The Zeitgeist Movement

字幕と単語

ワンタップで英和辞典検索 単語をクリックすると、意味が表示されます

B1 中級

Peter Joseph - Where are we now? - London 2009-07-25

  • 679 33
    王惟惟 に公開 2017 年 07 月 23 日
動画の中の単語