Placeholder Image

字幕表 動画を再生する

  • A Resource-Based Economy in its working state is really quite simple

  • deceptively simple given the complexity, imbalance

  • confusion and uncertainty of the monetary-market system

  • that we all endure today:

  • a method I will point out as I go along

  • that is completely decoupled from the natural world, from human needs.

  • It exists as a mere abstraction floating in the air.

  • In Part Three: Objections and Projections

  • which will hopefully be a little bit fun

  • I will touch upon some of the more common criticisms of this direction

  • along with what we, those of us that identify with this

  • in a very sincere way, are likely to expect

  • as this direction gains more attention across the world.

  • I think it's really important we come to terms with the inevitable hostility

  • that arises when we broach the deep-seeded subjects that we do.

  • It's important to remember that we are all victims of culture

  • as has been pointed out by previous speakers

  • and while many people are indeed

  • coming to terms with the growing social problems

  • and do see the Zeitgeist Movement, the Venus Project and the Resource-Based Economy

  • as a viable solution, there are also many

  • that have a very powerful identification with the current model

  • and in all seriousness, view our work as an extreme threat

  • to their identity, and it's something that unfortunately I think will grow.

  • [applause] You're applauding that?

  • You're funny.

  • Then in Part Four, I will talk briefly about the transition

  • something that's also been alluded to very well.

  • I come at it from a similar angle although a little more general.

  • The complexity and lack of predictability it holds is often illusive

  • to those that immediately hear about this information

  • and ask the immediate question "How do we do it? " Changing the world is not easy

  • especially when the concept presented is probably the most radical

  • social shift this species has ever faced or considered.

  • But this is why we're here. The core interest of the Zeitgeist Movement is...

  • The defining interest is to put our heads together

  • to work together, to figure out how to actually get this done.

  • That's why we're here.

  • If anyone, by the way, is simply waiting for me to tell them what to do

  • or anyone else to guide their way, sorry you're going to be disappointed.

  • The Zeitgeist Movement is not a follow-the-leader movement.

  • The only way this movement will work is if each one of you in this audience

  • each one of you listening to this webcast or viewing this event archive

  • in the future, sees the merit of this and is prepared

  • to take the time and sacrifice to become an expert

  • on this material and be able to transmit it to your fellowman in a fluid way.

  • [applause] Thank you.

  • I've ended two of my previous films with "The Revolution is now" and I want to clarify:

  • The Revolution is a revolution of thought.

  • It's a revolution of creativity, of ingenuity, a revolution of consciousness.

  • I want to make it very, very clear that this

  • is an information-based movement. It's an enlightenment of understanding

  • what can be if we cared enough.

  • Part One: A Self-Generating Model

  • A wise man once said "The most profound understandings

  • tend to be the most obvious, yet overlooked."

  • I want everyone to keep that in mind as I run down the following section

  • for as elementary as what I'm about to point out may seem

  • these issues are far from being given the relevance they deserve.

  • You know that 'of course mentality'.

  • Those who say that tend to not understand what you are saying.

  • Natural Law:

  • A natural law is a property of what we call nature

  • or the whole of the physical phenomenon around us

  • to which we are symbiotically connected.

  • Classic example is the law of gravity.

  • [It] doesn't matter how much faith I have

  • to believe I can jump up right now and dance on the ceiling.

  • The law of gravity simply won't allow it.

  • Since the effects of gravity are also measurable and predictable

  • becoming a tool, this knowledge becomes the basis of inference

  • which we use to make more accurate decisions.

  • Once this law was discovered, all sorts of possibilities began to emerge

  • and the world became a little bit more intelligent about what was possible

  • and what wasn't, when it comes a phenomenon related to it.

  • It builds up upon... We build upon natural law.

  • As another example, before the germ basis of disease

  • was discovered by Louis Pasteur, there were many ineffective

  • and outright dangerous treatments for human sickness

  • (as anyone who studies medical history will know)

  • and we look back at these strange

  • suspicious and often superstitious methods

  • and wonder, how could we possibly have been so misinformed?

  • Yet, we seldom recognize this trend as a universal

  • and how it applies to us today. Most rarely consider

  • that many of our current modern practices might be in the same boat

  • to be looked back upon by future human societies which will wonder

  • "What the hell were they thinking?

  • Didn't they see the natural law referent for that issue?"

  • Etcetera.

  • The point here is that the evolution of scientific discoveries

  • discoveries which always originate from feedback

  • from the natural world, constantly refine our understandings

  • (if we're open to receive it, which is a conversation in and of itself).

  • It creates dependable, testable reference

  • that we can use to assist in our reasoning about the problems

  • solutions or even invention.

  • The process of transfer or reason from a given law

  • to an extrapolated conclusion

  • is called inferential logic

  • as if anyone's ever studied these things in college.

  • Nearly every man-made thing you see in the modern world

  • is essentially a product of this reasoning.

  • Everything. However there is a one area of human life

  • which we all have to admit goes virtually untouched

  • by the natural law 'reference'

  • and the extrapolation of this reasoning

  • and that is our Social System.

  • Somehow human organization is excluded here.

  • For some reason the social arrangement that we utilize goes untouched

  • as evolution continues as information.

  • It exists as one of the most dated practices of organization I think we have left.

  • I can break off into many different areas from this point

  • in regard to how provably ineffective and archaic

  • the whole of human social management is conducted

  • from our prison systems

  • to the banking oligarchs that we blindly accept

  • to the grand distortion that I literally could talk for hours on end

  • and if you hadn't seen my prior presentations, 'Social Pathology'

  • I strongly suggest them, but that's not the point

  • of what this presentation is about because I want to hone in.

  • I want to narrow it down to one thing

  • and that is universal human needs.

  • Many, throughout modern history, have been trying

  • to find a universal distinction for what we call human nature

  • a very open word these days used almost flagrantly by the population.

  • The question becomes "What traits are universal

  • across the whole of the human species? " You really can't define human nature

  • without that essentially being the case.

  • Rather than speculate, which is what the great majority of public does

  • (and I'm going to talk about it later as an argument that moves against us.

  • People often bring this up. ) let's actually think about

  • what we actually know.

  • Human nature in a general sense is at least

  • a set of immutable human needs

  • that run through the species without exception.

  • Needs which not only govern our physical health (which is the first thing

  • most people think of when they think of a human need such as food)

  • but can actually also trigger different predictable behavioral

  • and physiological tendencies that are quite elusive in the organism

  • that are not readily apparent in the sense of causality

  • that we typically think of.

  • Furthermore, it isn't just those needs must be met

  • in a traditional 'input' sense. There's also the very real need

  • for all of us to have protection against other forms of stimulus

  • that can corrupt and distort us.

  • As will be touched upon in a moment, certain environmental or social stressors

  • for example, can create profound

  • yet initially unnoticed consequences in human development

  • and it's a very misunderstood and underappreciated fact.

  • Needless to say, if I don't get proper nutrition: water, air

  • I will cease to exist over time.

  • If I'm exposed to substances that are chemically toxic

  • to my biology, such as ingesting mercury

  • I will likely get very sick or have permanent brain damage.

  • If I suffer serious vitamin deficiency as a child

  • there's a predictable detrimental outcome for my personal health

  • such as stunted growth or immunity deficiencies.

  • Human needs do not stop at that basic level.

  • Humans are bio-psychosocial organisms

  • meaning we are affected by our environment, symbiotically

  • in very subtle and complex ways.

  • and before I continue... Who's water is this? It's mine? Beautiful.

  • (Audience member) It's all ours.

  • [applause]

  • For instance

  • if a mother in the late stages of pregnancy

  • suffers extreme emotional stress

  • flooding her system with cortisol (a stress hormone)

  • the nervous system of that child could be predictably compromised

  • in a negative way for the rest of his or her life

  • for the fetus is in a stage of learning about what the world actually is.

  • It's a natural evolutionary adaptability of the growing organism

  • and it's extremely important at the earliest stages, including in utero.

  • This goes through infancy and early childhood as well:

  • a critical developmental period where the organism is literally being programmed

  • adapted to the possible nature of the world they exist in

  • an impression which has been found to carry again

  • for the entire life of that person in certain ways.

  • If that critical period is met with severe negative stress

  • (suffering, pain, abuse) that child's development

  • as we all know intuitively could develop into predictable

  • tendencies of behavior from what science has been able to teach us

  • propensities such as addictions

  • and violence in later life.

  • The point here with respect to human need

  • is that the physical, mental and emotional health of a person

  • can no longer be considered an isolated temporal affair.

  • We are socially and environmentally connected

  • and in an extremely real way, multifaceted.

  • The historical absolute notion of freewill

  • (which was touched upon earlier) a blanket assumption

  • which is at the core of our legal system

  • can only be a myth when this understanding is observed.

  • While genetics has its obvious place (which I will touch upon a little bit later)

  • there is little denying now that the variation

  • that we see in human health, disease and human behavior

  • appears to be significantly the result of our social

  • and environmental conditioning, highlights

  • through human needs being met or not being met.

  • While it's obvious that there's cultural conditioning happening

  • when it comes to our bare needs and the spectrum of those

  • it's accentuated

  • when those impressions are met or not met

  • when we do not get what we need or we are imposed upon

  • by something that we should not be imposed upon.

  • The life-cycle itself (the pre-programming, pre-learning we have

  • as an organism) has throughout the cycle

  • different responses to those needs.

  • Naturally the younger you are, the more the effect

  • will pertain and continue for the rest of your life

  • the more severe the effect.

  • The problem of course is that there is a overall lack of acknowledgment

  • of the bio-psychosocial context of human need and its profound effect on us.

  • It goes essentially unnoticed overall by our educational system

  • the prison system, not to mention its contrast to

  • a competitive economic world

  • driven by a mentality of independence and self-interest.

  • I would even go so far to say that the core idea of being responsible

  • and caring towards each other

  • or even the environment on many levels, is actually held in hostility

  • and contempt by many that have been conditioned by the current model.

  • Little in the world we have created today seems to reflect

  • these very real fundamental needs. They are denied

  • by the social institution.

  • The bottom line here is that if we as a society actually care about

  • the well-being of each other and the symbiotic natural law aspects

  • that create and reinforce that progressive state

  • we are faced with an immutable social imperative.

  • Across the entire spectrum of what we consider public health today

  • we now see long-term increases overall in cancer

  • personality disorders, poverty, familial deprivation

  • crime, depression, suicides, addiction, violence, self-harm

  • kids mutilating themselves, obesity

  • and many other medical, psychological

  • and anti-social signposts of an out-of-balance society.

  • Something clearly is very, very wrong.

  • Returning to my basic point, the core referent

  • of any social system is the human being and its evolutionarily defined

  • immutable, pre-learned, need-requirements to develop properly

  • survive, maintain good health and prosper.

  • To meet those needs, it becomes a given to have proper management

  • of the Earth's resources

  • and intelligent societal organization to make sure

  • that the bio-psychosocial elements (the inter-connectivity)

  • is also designed to support us

  • in all the complexity that pertains to it.

  • Anything less, frankly, is really negligence.

  • In the words of Jacque Fresco "You can't just build a society

  • without having access to the necessities of life

  • so when I use the term comprehensive systems approach

  • I'm talking about doing an inventory of the area first

  • and determining what that area can supply.

  • Not just an architectural approach, not just a design approach

  • but that the design must be based upon all the requirements to enhance

  • human life. And that's what I mean by integrated way of thinking:

  • food, clothing, shelter, warmth, love. All those things are necessary.

  • If you deprive people of any of them, you have a lesser human being

  • less capable of functioning."

  • In the end, public health, in the broad view

  • is the ultimate measure of the performance of any social system

  • along with the intelligent management of the earth

  • which provides the core resources we need

  • coupled with social conditions;

  • for example, reduced negative stress.

  • That's paramount to a healthy society.

  • The monetary market system on the other hand:

  • the governing socio-economic paradigm of our time which is based

  • entirely around the mere arbitrary movement of money

  • not the advancement of public health or environmental sustainability

  • as it conflates needs with wants

  • and consumption with progress

  • shows its true hand when we realize that both human health

  • and the environment which we inhabit

  • are provably in decline.

  • You can take all the monetary economic theories

  • as brilliant and sophisticated as they may sound on paper

  • and their grand loaded rhetoric of supposed freedom and democracy

  • and simply compare those ideals to what is actually happening today.

  • There's no contest.

  • If there was one word to me which summarizes

  • the current social economic paradigm, it would be 'inefficient'.

  • The monetary market system simply has no direct

  • physical reference for any decision

  • since the entire model is based on the irrational scientifically empty

  • whims of monetary exchange and often fictional demand.

  • No overarching consideration for the inter-connectivity inherent

  • in the world you see around you. No structural interest to officially meet

  • the spectrum of human needs and make sure the integrity

  • of each human is sound, regardless of the adverse consequences

  • both personally and socially when that is denied.

  • No consideration for the resources which allow

  • for our survival and fulfill our needs.

  • No consideration for the natural orders of balance at all.

  • It is virtually baseless in the light of governing natural law

  • and its demands and restrictions which are immutable.

  • And the world you see around you is proof of that.

  • A Resource-Based Economy, on the other hand, is very different

  • and this brings us to Part 2: Economic Components Defined.

  • A Resource-Based Economy is a direct response to natural law

  • inferentially derived to figure out how to best meet the spectrum

  • of human needs in the most efficient and sustainable way possible

  • taking into account what actually supports us

  • which is the symbiotic relationship of the earth

  • and this delicate, providing biosphere we all share.

  • From there, we are able to arrange society

  • with very little need for human opinion

  • if our collective goal is to maximize our sustainability

  • human health and economic efficiency.

  • This system is self-evident.

  • The goal of a Resource-Based Economy is to achieve

  • peak ecological sustainability and operational efficiency

  • while meeting the spectrum of essential needs

  • of every human being on earth without exception

  • adapting itself to new scientific understandings in human

  • and environmental discoveries as they arise

  • and applying it immediately without any interference whatsoever

  • once the scientific validity of those interests are proven.

  • You notice in the prior statement about needs and wants...

  • You'll notice I said the wants of every human being on earth...

  • [Imitates VCR rewinding]... Let me start again.

  • You'll notice I didn't say 'wants of every human on Earth'.

  • It's important we understand a distinction between needs and wants.

  • Wants are not based on natural law. Wants are social contrivances

  • based on cultural influences

  • fueled today by what we could call the infinite-growth paradigm

  • which demands that everyone keep consuming at increasing rates

  • in order for the growth economy to remain afloat.

  • The result, in part, is that wants and needs are now conflated.

  • It's a strategy. Some people have excessive purchasing power

  • and can have anything they want

  • while at the same time, the great majority now can not only achieve

  • their temporal cultural-generated wants

  • they can't even meet their basic human needs.

  • If you have a system that conflates those two, suddenly no-one's responsible

  • because it comes to a single entity, so we can accept

  • the fact that a child dies every 4 seconds for no reason because of poverty.

  • On a different level, I often get the question when I bring up this model

  • "What if I want a 50-room mansion in a Resource-Based Economy?

  • Where's my freedom to have that? " and I usually ask back

  • "OK, well, what if I want a million-room mansion?"

  • or perhaps "What I want the entire continent of Africa as my backyard?"

  • At what point does this selfish, acquisitive, spoiled interest

  • become blatantly irresponsible and socially offensive?

  • Given we want to live on a finite planet

  • and too, in a society which, regardless of the social system

  • resources must be shared

  • excessive, ostentatious living to me

  • is really an anti-social form of neuroses

  • groomed by a social system that needs constant demand

  • and rewards, arbitrary status for the sake of that demand.

  • It's a psychological scam in a way

  • and if you think about it deeply

  • it's actually a form of violence against humanity itself.

  • Now before I run down... Thank you.

  • [Applause]

  • Before I run down the dominant economic considerations

  • underlining the mechanics of a Resource-Based Economy

  • I want to conclude this subject on needs and wants

  • by pointing out the brilliance of Jacque Fresco's work with The Venus Project

  • and his focus on advanced understandings and methods.

  • The modern reality is that as long as we as a society

  • understand the limits of the finite world we inhabit

  • and respect each other as equals in the basic fundamental sense

  • that we all have the right to live, we could not only meet

  • the basic needs of every human on earth as I've described

  • but given the incredible state of advanced technology today

  • and its rate of change, we can easily enter into the realm of meeting

  • the wants of the human population to agree

  • (likely unimaginable) for 99% of the world today.

  • We can create a vast material abundance if we simply updated

  • and organized ourselves efficiently using modern understandings.

  • Coming back to the model, I want to specifically isolate 3 aspects

  • which are critical to responsible decision making

  • for the sustainable fulfillment of human necessity:

  • resource accounting, dynamic equilibrium and strategic design.

  • Resource accounting: We live in a virtually closed planetary biosphere

  • with a set of mostly finite resources at our disposal.

  • Given this reality, the logic becomes quite clear

  • as to our responsibility if we wish to allow our habitat

  • to sustain itself for future generations.

  • We must organize and account. (It's a no-brainer.)

  • Proper economic resource allocation

  • really cannot be made unless we have a clear understanding

  • of what we have and where it is. Again it's no mystery

  • yet bizarrely, it's not done at all today

  • in any kind of concentrated way.

  • But accounting is only the first step of this responsible Earth

  • and social management I'm describing.

  • We also need to track the rates of change and regeneration, if applicable.

  • Again, it seems like a no-brainer doesn't it? It seems so obvious.

  • Why aren't we doing it?

  • Here we have what could be called 'Dynamic Equilibrium'.

  • A classic example of this issue today is deforestation.

  • Trees have a natural growth rate and we can't really alter that

  • at least not now, and if our use of wood exceeds

  • the natural regeneration rate of a particular area, we have a problem.

  • It's the definition of unsustainability.

  • Remember, that the monetary market model

  • requires as much consumption as possible

  • to keep the growing population employed and the economy operational.

  • This is very simply by all definition complete ecocide.

  • Remember, a core requirement of a true economy

  • based on something tangible is to economize

  • to be strategically efficient and conservative.

  • Today we live in an 'anti-economy' to quote John McMurtry.

  • This leads us to strategic design.

  • Efficiently meeting the spectrum of human needs on a finite planet

  • in a sustainable way, means resource allocation

  • must be optimized strategically and conservatively.

  • Today this is haphazardly done through arbitrary monetary rationalizations.

  • It is about what could be afforded by the producer or the consumer

  • not what the most efficient strategic use actually is

  • not to mention the issue of longevity of a given good

  • and the method to be used for its eventual breakdown, the recycling.

  • None of that is considered in the initial design of anything

  • for as I've mentioned prior, it's all about constant turnover.

  • Remember, an economy is about increase and efficiency at all times.

  • It's about doing what is most scientifically correct

  • not what some company can afford

  • in order to remain competitive in the market system.

  • We need strategic allocation and design as derived

  • from proven technical parameters that assure maximum efficiency

  • and sustainability. Anything less is just absolute negligence

  • when you really sit down and think about it.

  • It's beyond depressing and enraging

  • when you see what's actually occurring.

  • Resource Accounting, Dynamic Equilibrium, Strategic Design:

  • This sets the basic underlay of the Resource-Based Economy Model.

  • These core components are the basic orienters

  • which take into account the natural law I just described

  • from the standpoint of Earth and human systems

  • which are the two component attributes in the broadest scheme

  • that are essentially in consideration here.

  • There's more obviously. There's environment and everything else

  • but we are here to sustain ourselves.

  • Symbiotically related, we have to sustain the planet

  • and the entire ecosystem simultaneously, including the bees that pollinate

  • the health of the oceans and everything else.

  • Sometimes I've had an argument come against me: "This is too human-centric,"

  • which I thought was extremely interesting because people

  • have so much sympathy for animals and everything else as they should

  • but we have to understand that it's all worked in. It's all one big system.

  • The extinctions spasms we see are detrimental to us

  • depending on, obviously, what they are

  • but everything that's happening is both natural

  • but it's also interfered by what we're doing

  • and the fact that we still have certain areas of the planet that have to do

  • manual pollination because of the death of bees in certain regions

  • is a truly horrifying and revealing notion

  • regarding the state of affairs today.

  • Let's continue the inference now. Building upon these 3 points

  • we can then arrive at the following specific points

  • and I'm going to make a jump here because of the time restrictions

  • of this presentation.

  • We need to move from a growth to a steady-state economy.

  • 1. Dynamic Equilibrium cannot be maintained in a growth economy

  • for constant growth is impossible on a finite planet.

  • 2. We need a collaborative system, not a competitive one.

  • Strategic design cannot be fulfilled

  • when cost-efficiency is in play.

  • The competitive system is wholly irresponsible and inefficient

  • and I'm not even talking about the moral issue here.

  • It's intrinsically anti-social and corrupt, I will admit that

  • but it actually doesn't even work.

  • 3. We need a planned system:

  • A system designed to take into account resource allocation

  • dynamic equilibrium and strategic design explicitly

  • in a unified way, synergistically constructed.

  • The dispersed, haphazard, free for all corporate system doesn't even come close

  • and the lack of efficiency is simple unacceptable.

  • We've been living as though we are on an finite planet.

  • People have been groomed into this idea

  • that we have infinite resources

  • and as a natural consequence with what's recurring today

  • with water, food, oil, energy issues

  • this rude awakening is finally taking the world by storm

  • or it certainly will very soon as time moves forward if nothing is done.

  • 4. Automation

  • is put before human labor on all possible levels.

  • This falls under the component of strategic design.

  • Not only do we need to design consumer goods

  • to be as efficient as possible, the very design

  • of the production methods utilized for those goods

  • needs to be equally strategically efficient to maximize

  • accuracy, conservation and output.

  • Productivity, as I've described before, is now

  • inverse to employment in most sectors studied

  • which means it is socially irresponsible

  • not to automate as much as we possibly can

  • for it allows greater abundance and efficiency.

  • Here's a chart of the G7 advanced, industrialized countries

  • showing how employment in manufacturing has been dropping

  • while manufacturing output has risen substantially.

  • Mechanization is simply far too productive to be ignored.

  • It is irresponsible not to employ mechanization

  • in every possible economic sector at this point.

  • 5. As was pointed out earlier in a presentation, I'll reiterate this:

  • We move from property to access

  • and the removal of the monetary exchange.

  • I'm a filmmaker and I have two closets jam-packed

  • full of film equipment that I'll maybe use

  • perhaps fully once a year at best

  • so I have to hoard all of this stuff. I would prefer

  • not to have it at all and rent it

  • but in this system, I lose money in the long run.

  • It's detrimental and inefficient economically due to the repeated costs

  • and no resale possibility or investment.

  • In order to be economically responsible, which we are all forced to be

  • I have to store it in my apartment.

  • I would prefer not to have to do that at all.

  • In a Resource-Based Economy, there's no such thing as investment

  • relative value, or the like. I could simply acquire my cameras

  • from the access facility, use them, return them, like a library.

  • It'd be beautiful, and if you extend this idea

  • to the whole of the goods sector

  • the realization is that we can actually reduce production

  • and the use of resources because they are being spread around

  • while counter intuitively, simultaneously

  • enabling more access to the population when they need it.

  • I hope everyone gets that. Strategic access

  • is incredible because it's enabling more people to have more access

  • with less resources consumed.

  • I know it's very difficult to think about

  • how a property-less society would work

  • from a protectionist standpoint, given the world we live in today.

  • No one is going to steal your car if they know they can't resell it

  • or if they gain access to it themselves.

  • People often forget why

  • so-called criminal behavior occurs.

  • There's reasons and those reasons can be resolved.

  • The system itself that we want to create here

  • is simply designed to meet those needs.

  • That's what an economy is.

  • That's what it does. Money is no longer needed

  • in a world that has an access abundance

  • and a population that actually understands

  • what it means to live in a society

  • where humans have to share the resources

  • and it's a finite planet, to reiterate that point. Is it perfect?

  • No, it's not a Utopia, and there are a series of holes

  • that even I can punch into it, but that doesn't mean they're not resolvable.

  • It would be cataclysmically better than anything we have now

  • which is damaging ourselves and our environment

  • and is on pace to getting worse exponentially.

  • This brings us to Part 3:

  • Objections and Projections

  • I'm moving very quickly here.

  • The preceding Resource-Based Economic Model treatment

  • is a very compressed primer.

  • Joe did a wonderful job of making a more extensive treatment of this

  • which is similar to other lectures that have been given

  • of course our Orientation Guide, so I'm really happy

  • that a thorough explanation was given

  • because if you are not familiar with it, this would be very truncated

  • which it very much is. I really encourage everyone to follow up

  • if you have questions with all the resources we have at thezeitgeistmovement.com

  • One thing I do recommend as a counterpart

  • to the human necessity angle, the build-up inferential logical approach

  • that I just denoted, is a section called 'Project Earth' I did

  • in a lecture called 'Where Are We Going?'

  • while there's also a truncated version of that in the film

  • 'Zeitgeist: Moving Forward'.

  • Please know that there's much more to it than this

  • but I hope the reasoning of what I've just described is coming through.

  • My goal here in that description was to approach it from the angle

  • of human need, which is something unfortunately we don't think about.

  • Not just the human need aspect, but also the Systems Earth Approach

  • the relationship between the two, and what we have to do to find balance

  • maximum efficiency and balance to enable as much prosperity as possible.

  • That's the equation. That's the calculation.

  • My goal with Part 3 is to not only address very common criticisms

  • (speculations that come up regarding what we've just described

  • and all the other materials that we have) but also to use those points

  • to further communicate some other important issues of a Resource-Based Economy.

  • Before I begin, I think it's important to discuss something

  • that's very important to me that I see rising in the community

  • on the Internet, in my own personal experiences and interactions with people

  • and that is the issue of violence in communication.

  • Needless to say, we're all victims of culture on one level or another.

  • That means we've been influenced and groomed into

  • certain patterns of thought by our environment.

  • And one of the cultural staples of modern society, unfortunately

  • is the use of verbal violence to support one's position.

  • Sadly, I don't know anyone who doesn't impulsively engage in this

  • from time to time including myself.

  • Calling people names might not seem as offensive

  • as physical assault

  • but the intent is essentially the same.

  • The intent is to injure, to dehumanize and humiliate.

  • Verbal violence is just a different degree of physical violence.

  • In fact I'm a firm believer...

  • I've done tremendous amount of study

  • on the work of Martin Luther King, Gandhi

  • and all of the initiators of the nonviolent communication movement.

  • The goal of nonviolent communication is to try and leave the door open

  • for others to enter if they choose to do so

  • to unconditionally invite them to accept you

  • regardless of how much they actually hate you

  • and wish to injure you on whatever level.

  • Easier said than done, but it really is the only effective method.

  • I state this because the nature of our work in The Zeitgeist Movement

  • has become a magnet and will continue to become a magnet

  • for various levels of assault.

  • Think about it:

  • All of us that are identified with this work here, telling the world

  • that what they're doing is wrong

  • at the basic level of operation and understanding.

  • We're here initiating global change that exceeds anything

  • attempted in human history, as far as I know.

  • A radical shift away from everything the majority of people on this planet

  • have come to identify with.

  • Hostility is not only expected, it's inevitable

  • and it's very important that we all be prepared for this

  • intellectually and emotionally

  • and have great patience and understanding

  • and know how to behave accurately.

  • [applause]

  • Now we always have a lot of seriousness in the discussions

  • (naturally seriousness is important, it's where we are)

  • but I've tried to make this a little bit more relaxed

  • in my presentation of the critics of a Resource-Based Economy.

  • First of all, about 99% of the time, the critics of this system

  • approach it from the standpoint of prior surface associations

  • from history.

  • In fact the greatest phrase I've ever heard as of yet

  • was someone who referred to it as, 'Marxism with robots'.

  • Now I'm not blind. [What is it? ] That's Tiny, the communist robot.

  • He's a good guy.

  • I'm not blind I see the obvious surface associations

  • with historically proposed communism

  • but as I have alluded to in a truncated fashion

  • the train of thought that arrives at a Resource-Based Economy is self-evident.

  • Those that use this rhetoric often presented as though we are building upon

  • those early ideas. Well, no.

  • Communism, in whatever form, might not have ever existed

  • and it wouldn't change anything as to the inferential logic

  • that arrives at a Resource-Based Economy.

  • Natural Law is Natural Law.

  • Human needs are human needs

  • and a finite planet is a finite planet.

  • The entire argument is worthless, does nothing but waste time

  • and I recommend the avoidance of that debate

  • unless you want to bring up what I just described.

  • If you pay close attention

  • the same people that tend to impose their Communist

  • Socialist, Marxist label upon us, are also the ones

  • that rarely ever address the core foundational reasoning

  • of the model that we're talking about. They never talk about it

  • and they also never talk about the failing social structure.

  • They ignore all of it and just look at the surface appearance

  • the cover of the book that they recognize, the projection

  • that they manifest because of their conditioning.

  • Next we have a unique one

  • but it's become much more prominent.

  • I hear more than I care to admit and that is

  • the feared 're-education'.

  • Since we speak about the need for people to shift their values

  • into something that is more aligned with Natural Law

  • and show the reasoning for it, suddenly

  • we are just like the early totalitarian communists

  • who seek to put people in forced 're-education camps'

  • so they can be brainwashed into following the social system.

  • Actually anytime any known idea is overturned by new information

  • such as when Galileo informed the Catholic Church

  • that the earth was not the center of the universe or solar system

  • re-education had commenced.

  • The whole evolution of knowledge is the constant process

  • of yes, re-education, updating current beliefs.

  • This is self-evident but I'd like to make this very clear

  • because I am, frankly, tired of hearing it.

  • This is an associative attack ultimately, just like the communist one.

  • It's people that are really trying to pull an emotional reaction out of others

  • to stop their critical thought to really investigate what we're talking about.

  • So "Communism, oh they support re-education!"

  • This is a growing phenomenon, both in sub-culture

  • and into pseudo mainstream attacks that I've seen on myself

  • the The Venus Project and the Movement.

  • Then we have the moody outburst:

  • "What if I don't want to live in your society?"

  • Well, then don't.

  • Just as arrangements exist for sub-cultures today who reject modern life

  • in the future, equally as viable conditions can be met.

  • If a group wants to break off and go play

  • their little monopoly game somewhere, go ahead.

  • I have a hard time believing, frankly,

  • that once this system is set in motion and the fruits of its efficiency

  • are seen by everyone, not to mention the true freedom

  • people will have, which would be unlike anything the world has ever seen

  • once the life-wasting, redundant labor for income system is removed.

  • And then we have our cherished democracy.

  • What about democracy in a Resource-Based Economy?

  • What exactly are you expecting?

  • Wading into some voting booth every couple of years

  • like a mind-slave pushing a button for a candidate

  • you have zero control over once elected?

  • When you step back... You can hear the irritation in my voice

  • because in my sheer honest opinion

  • I can't believe it's still around, that we're still doing that...

  • The real election of relevance is not the election of people.

  • That is a dated, bizarre notion that we think...

  • It's a give-in to a power system.

  • We're enabling a power system of control, giving

  • literally as this cartoon depicts

  • the freedom to elect our dictators

  • because we have no control over anything they do

  • once they're elected and then a couple of years go by...

  • "Oh, maybe we can remove them..."

  • Real election of relevance is not the election of people. It's the election of ideas.

  • It's creating the actual system

  • of interaction where new ideas can be submitted by everyone

  • and they are technically evaluated for their relevance and possibility.

  • Please see The Orientation Guide that we have in thezeitgeistmovement.com

  • for the proposed central database program

  • an extrapolation of modern A. I. understandings.

  • It sounds fanciful. It sounds like science fiction

  • but these realities are coming to fruition very quickly

  • and decision-making processes, the digestion of information

  • even through our crude language, is becoming viable

  • through automated systems. It would mediate

  • our human interaction and evaluate proposals objectively

  • as opposed to a political party with lobbyist influences

  • that might see your idea as viable in a scientific sense

  • but because of their influence they will override it

  • which happens on a daily basis

  • I probably shouldn't have to even explain that.

  • OK, and then we have

  • "Collectivism doesn't work", and this is a very common one.

  • "Collectivism just doesn't work."

  • If the core basis of collectivism

  • and its foundational definition...

  • What is it, really? It's simply a group of people working together

  • for their common good as a whole.

  • If this wasn't working we wouldn't have business

  • we wouldn't have the military, we wouldn't have sports teams

  • we wouldn't have people working in any group effort whatsoever.

  • As far as using the model of a collective

  • as the basis of a social system which is

  • a very large extreme of such an idea

  • which has never really been seriously tried

  • people throw out the collectivist notion

  • as though historically in the early communist states

  • that these were true collectivist societies. No, they were not.

  • They were always dictatorships by design:

  • autocratic, which is not collective.

  • A real collective is simply society working together as a team

  • like a family. Imagine that!

  • And the last one for this section

  • my favorite "It's against human nature!"

  • We are simply unable to work together on a large scale

  • because of our evolutionarily embedded self-interest.

  • No hope or stock. Everyone go home.

  • To this day, I'm amazed at how many people I run into

  • with no education on the matter whatsoever

  • not opening one book

  • that throw out the human nature argument as the immutable force

  • that will never allow any type of community

  • to come to fruition, especially a Resource-Based Economy.

  • Just recently I read an article

  • that was produced by the John Burt Society

  • which is a right wing anti-communist group.

  • At the very last paragraph of this bashing of Zeitgeist

  • and The Venus Project: "Well, Jacque Fresco and his fantasies

  • are nice and cute but unfortunately human nature won't allow it."

  • I can assure you that this guy has never done anything

  • to research what that actually means.

  • It's the last bastion of those who have nothing else to say

  • in defense to support their indoctrination.

  • [applause]

  • The ultimate question to delve into is:

  • "Is it against human nature to cooperate? " That's the central question.

  • It certainly seems like that if you take the narrow view of history

  • on the surface level, and you look at the tremendous divisions

  • and conflicts throughout time.

  • We see endless series of wars, genocides, conquests

  • severe competitive tendencies, power abuses

  • and given that's the pattern we recognize historically

  • and that we see this in our history books with no real background

  • as to the foundation of why that occurred

  • it's easy to assume that must just be human nature:

  • "It's just the way we are. Forget the environment. That's our programming."

  • And that's essentially the core argument: If it's historically recurring

  • it must be human nature.

  • However we do see (and this is what's ignored)

  • that human beings do cooperate extremely well in certain environments.

  • As much as I don't like the military, it's a collective.

  • It is a unified system working together.

  • It is a collaborative system.

  • They train and work together and they do so very well. Granted

  • they are competing against a common enemy so there's the division

  • but cooperation is existing, nevertheless, even if it's isolated.

  • I had a conversation with a behavioral biologist

  • at Stanford University, and he made a very unique point to me

  • regarding the subject of self-interest and the 'us against them' pattern

  • that exists as he's seen it through almost all primate species

  • including ourselves.

  • It appears that if the human species is very different

  • in its 'us against them' issue while it's concurrent, while it exists

  • (obviously the pattern exists) the malleability of who the 'them' is

  • and who the 'us' is, is almost as arbitrary as anything else.

  • On a dime we can turn the other cheek and find a new enemy.

  • Who is to say that the enemy has to be another person or group?

  • The conditions might simply be dictating

  • that due to the scarcity of the environment perhaps

  • which is probably the reality.

  • What if the human species came together to move against

  • other enemies, perhaps true threats to the survival

  • of the species as a whole which, as we've seen in Japan

  • are natural disasters and diseases.

  • Why can't that be the 'them'

  • of the human species and we be the 'us'.

  • [applause]

  • At the end of the day, the entire thing is really about the environment

  • and that is what navigates this. I have no problems

  • I find no dichotomy in the understanding of human nature, with respect

  • to us being able to collaborate because the patterns are all there.

  • It's simply creating the conditions and the understanding

  • to make it happen.

  • There's a great deal I could have said on the nature versus nurture

  • and the evolutionary psychology issue. The film that I released

  • the first opening section, I think does a very good job to create a primer

  • on some very important aspects.

  • Part 4: Transition and The Movement

  • The Transition itself from our current system into a Resource- Based Economy

  • is a complex thing to consider with variables

  • beyond our current foresight as has been alluded to by previous presenters.

  • The central issue is awareness. If the public's consciousness

  • can be expanded to understand and accept the incredible potential

  • the future can hold, where poverty

  • war, 95% of all crime

  • mundane, repetitive, meaningless jobs would be eliminated

  • that I feel they would be more likely to adjust their values

  • expectations and associations accordingly.

  • This data is coming on the heels now of a global economic

  • ecological and dare I say 'spiritual'

  • or 'confidence' collapse across the world

  • and the underlying mechanism of these problems

  • driven by the monetary market system's very mechanics and values

  • that are generated to support it

  • show no signs of stopping.

  • I think we're going to see as I mentioned earlier an acceleration

  • of these issues as time moves forward.

  • I'm not going to expand on the different levels of social failure

  • as I see it because it isn't scope of this program.

  • In my lecture, 'Social Pathology' (which was done on Z-day 2009)

  • I do a huge expansion of this if you want to understand

  • the pending collapse, which deals with technological unemployment

  • peak oil, resource depletion, water and food shortages

  • that are pending because of failures of efficiency

  • systemic global sovereign debt defaults and hyperinflation

  • along with massive or the result of massive civil unrest

  • As confidence continues to fail people become more alienated

  • poverty increases and income disparity increases

  • as the wealthy work to protect themselves

  • and grab as much as they can because

  • that is their reaction to these types of things.

  • The worse it becomes, the worse it's going to get.

  • I hate to say it that way but that is the natural unfolding

  • as has been happening.

  • We're faced with a massive uncertainty and there is no transition plan

  • that I can explain to you that will hold up over time.

  • What we do know is that we need to get programs going

  • which will continue to get this information out there

  • and spread the word and basically, fuel the movement.

  • One program I hope to get going, is a Global Redesign Team

  • and I've been briefly in conversation with The Venus Project about this

  • and it's also affiliated with a prior online concept called

  • 'From Earth to Venus' which is going to be...

  • Essentially, we want to objectively consider

  • how each area of the planet would be properly redesigned

  • for maximal sustainability. If there are engineers

  • in the movement, if there are city planners

  • it's time to come together in a virtual sense

  • understanding whatever we can to start to reconstruct this

  • and show the world what can be done.

  • And then have an annual presentation very much like Z-Day

  • but of a more focused context

  • where the work would be presented to the world to say:

  • "We've just designed the entire North American system.

  • Look how efficient that is. " And hopefully

  • leaders, governments and people in business will come to terms

  • with the need for this type of understanding and it will take hold.

  • In a transitional sense that might be a good starting point

  • where they come to these conferences and they learn

  • big presentations about how to literally redesign the society

  • to benefit us in the most sustainable way possible.

  • We have this thing called the G-20...

  • We need the Z-20 or the Z-200

  • [applause]

  • to begin to show those people and the world

  • what a real economy actually is.

  • [applause]

  • Our current goal in this phase is critical mass

  • unifying the world to understand what actually constitutes

  • our survival and prosperity as we discussed and how the current model

  • is really injuring everyone, regardless of their wealth.

  • The stress relationships are inescapable

  • and are not necessary, even for the uberly rich.

  • As of now, we have over a thousand chapters

  • in 70 countries over the span of essentially two years.

  • We have a proven as a Movement in an almost unprecedented sense

  • with very little financial support

  • that we are able to organize and mobilize across borders

  • languages, even religions.

  • And this third annual Zeitgeist Day event

  • with hundreds of events across the world, show the power of influence

  • the possibility, the power of our cooperation.

  • 3rd Zeitgeist Day, hundreds of events across the world

  • we show amazing power of collaboration

  • amazing group effort, something that really is unprecedented.

  • We have the ability to harness a global movement

  • something that I think many people have strived for

  • but have never been able to do, and we've done it in a very short period of time.

  • We are in a transitional phase now

  • unifying the world into an understanding that our very survival

  • is contingent upon bridging the differences between cultures.

  • There's nowhere to hide anymore. There's no place

  • for the type of division that exists. It's literally unsustainable.

  • Finding the empirical common ground that we all share

  • through our fundamental needs is really that bridge

  • and if we can come to terms with that

  • and get the world to come together, we might actually have something

  • we can call a civilization to be perfectly frank.

  • In conclusion, I will end with my favorite quotes of all time:

  • "The old appeals to racial, sexual, religious chauvinism

  • to rabid nationalist fervor are beginning not to work.

  • A new consciousness has been developed which sees the earth

  • as a single organism and recognizes

  • that an organism at war with itself is doomed." (Carl Sagan)

  • We're one planet. Thank you

  • [applause]

A Resource-Based Economy in its working state is really quite simple

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

ピーター・ジョセフ - 資源ベースの経済に到達するために|ロンドンZデー2011 (Peter Joseph - Arriving at a Resource Based Economy | London Z Day 2011)

  • 10 2
    王惟惟 に公開 2021 年 01 月 14 日
動画の中の単語