Placeholder Image

字幕表 動画を再生する

  • Q: I wanted to ask you this. What was it that happened - it's not very clear, what this was ...

  • whether it was a conflict or disagreement that happened between the Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project,

  • because I remember watching that ... Jacque fresco, that he said he was ...

  • you guys had a disagreement, but he didn't say much else about that. Was it ...

  • So can you tell us what happened?

  • PJ: I've always been hesitant to expand on that anymore than necessary, because it's petty - it was a kind of ...

  • After two years of working with the Venus Project and allocating tremendous resources and such to the Venus Project

  • they felt fearful of their identity and they felt like I personally,

  • who was their biggest advocate, who had brought them out and was their biggest fan obviously.

  • And they felt like I was interfering with some kind of identity that they had -

  • that I and in one level, that was my final insult, was that, I was trying to, you know, usurp Jacque.

  • Something like that. As an ego trip. And I couldn't tolerate that.

  • So in a personal level ... I will l never, you know, asked anybody to stop interaction with them.

  • In fact we have ... we still have partnership stuff that we do -

  • the linguistic team still works with the Venus Project and so on and so forth.

  • So, and I just stopped talking about it, because, okay ...

  • I don't want to put any more, do any more damage to any of this.

  • Venus Project has a think-tank type of structure. They're not a movement.

  • And that's great. And that's Jacque's work - that's Jacque's life's work.

  • And that should exist as it is.

  • The movement is a linear force trying to do everything possible with every bridge possible -

  • with any options we could find to make things happen for the better.

  • I mean obviously our goal - the Resource-Based Economic model - what defines that train of thought.

  • It's shared to a degree, but I could actually say, there are some differences the way,

  • I personally think and communicate in the way, Jacque thought and communicated,

  • when it comes to nuances of things.

  • But I don't want to go into that either, because it sound ...

  • it seems like people become competitive when you start talking like that and I hate that.

  • So I just say ... let's just ...

  • It is everything keeps changing and moving and I hope another organization comes

  • along that's even better than the Zeitgeist Movement, you know,

  • because there's always gonna be a time span for things.

  • It's been 10 years of this. And I'm not gonna be mad, If someone took all these ideas and made it better.

  • I would never be mad at that. I could sleep finally.

  • [Laugh]

  • Q: Hi there.

  • In your presentation you talked about the Mr. Beer, he was talking about the fifth system

  • and the gentleman, he was talking to, was about people, right?

  • So just the idea of the recurring system or recursive systém

  • and systems working within systems - in what way will people

  • what role will people have with working in conjunction with that system?

  • PJ: That's a great point and you can read a whole book on it.

  • What I'd like to do now, is actually put in the context of what's going on right now in the 21st century,

  • because that was a long time ago - the way they are approaching, but basically decentralization -

  • something, that is of on everyone's tongue now, that's thinking, you know, forward.

  • Decentralization, where you have pockets of people, that are mostly independent -

  • remember the autonomy property, that I talked about -

  • and they are connected to other pockets at people,

  • they are autonomous to a certain degree, they manage their own work.

  • I'll give you an example.

  • Think about an energy grid.

  • Instead of the consolidated energy grid that we have now, you know.

  • You have a decentralized energy grid, where people are actually producing

  • their own energy independently on their own structures, that they own, that their homes -

  • solar panels and so on.

  • So they are in a sense their own singular systems semi autonomous.

  • They're still vulnerable to the environment and they're still connected to others,

  • because what are you do in that circumstance you connect

  • that viable system of that home producing that renewable energy.

  • Anything, that they you do in excess of their use,

  • goes back into a larger grid with all the other homes doing exactly the same thing.

  • Suddenly you don't have a centralized Energy Authority.

  • This has been talked about by a lot of people why. That's not my idea.

  • I think Jeremy Rifkin's talked about this of the the energy internet, he calls it.

  • It's very logical, eventually that's the way it's going to be. So that's a great example of it.

  • Did that answer your question you mentioned the top tier fifth thing?

  • Well think about the democratic sense, if you deciding to have your own energies off the grid,

  • so to speak energy world for your own work in your own home,

  • but you're also participating in the larger collective, so if I didn't ...

  • Think about mesh networks with cell phones in the internet.

  • I have been loved thinking about this.

  • So your phone can actually be changed and to be it a signal itself

  • and if everyone has a phone with the same signal going to each other's phones as a big network,

  • you could create a cell phone network without any controlled Authority.

  • You could create an internet structure without any control authority.

  • No one can flick a switch, no one can control it, no one can censor things.

  • I mean there's caveats, there's lots of things, that you could talk about technically, you know.

  • But that's the kind of thinking. So, if you bridge all that out, what you have our economic agents,

  • that are autonomous, we get, as pointed out in the model, they exist in environment,

  • where they're trying to, you know, bridge things together to respect that system unity

  • and they're autonomous at the same time and they regulate their own little world

  • while it works in that hierarchical levels of recursion they call it.

  • I'll leave it at that for now, because I can go on spiral of things,

  • but the idea of autonomous, collective autonomy, so to speak

  • where everyone's an individual agent just like your body, your liver and so -

  • as your liver respects the fact, that it's a part of your body,

  • it has its own self regulatory mechanisms along with it regulatory mechanisms your body.

  • And now one thing, I would add to that is, that when you have say your own home with that energy grid,

  • you're gonna have self-regulating mechanisms in that grid simultaneously, that you monitor.

  • So you're in control of that element of the of the whole node system.

  • Q: Okay. So this question is kind of two fold and if possible actually and … I'm sorry.

  • I didn't catch your name in the purple down there?

  • PJ: Josephine.

  • Q: Josephine, this might actually be best answered by you,

  • but I'll ask first ... about critical mass.

  • I wanted to talk about critical mass and how we bring about more wide sweeping changes,

  • because obviously, you know, we've got a very politically inert class, who is not interested,

  • they're not going to make implement changes legislatively. So, you know, strategies for sort of motivating that.

  • And the part, I wanted to ask you Josephine, was

  • you were out there talking about the basic income conference and how this is actually happening.

  • My big concern is, that if the Conservatives get elected, that they'll cancel the pilot program

  • and that won't go forward. So do we have any kind of feedback on that?

  • JG: First of all I think, they felt a little frightened to say, that they wouldn't continue it.

  • So at the moment they claim, that they would, I don't trust that guy obviously.

  • I think, you know, our first move is, if that guy looks like he's winning or he's gonna win,

  • we make sure the Liberals an NDP form a coalition,

  • because then we have critical mass to ensure, he doesn't get in power.

  • That's one thing.

  • But I will say, the basic income is absolutely vital, you know, as a means

  • by which people can be freed up to make these changes and change their behavior,

  • because, for instance, I would love to go and hang out at the Repair Cafe.

  • It's very rare, that I can actually squeeze out the time and the money to go and get there.

  • Which is really sad, right? And my project work is the same problem.

  • But when it comes to critical mass to make massive change,

  • you have a couple of things to keep in mind.

  • One is, that climate chaos is throwing a level of urgency, that has never existed before

  • and it's real and we can't ... , you know, well, people can pretend it's not ...,

  • but we all know it is, right?

  • Secondly, the dinosaurs, who thought, there was no future, who grew up,

  • thinking, that they had to get under the desk and that the world is going to blow up any second, they're aging out.

  • So you need to take hold every people, who are coming into positions of systems power

  • and structural power and you need to meet with them and talk to them.

  • You need to remember, that you pay them to make change.

  • You pay them to change our systems.

  • They are using our money, right? And that's, they're also being paid by us.

  • So that's imperative.

  • And I would lastly say that, if you want to get a sense of how that human part of a system -

  • structural systém - can operate in a self-corrective way,

  • this is where human rights education comes into play.

  • If you actually look at the treaties this country signed in our name

  • and then, you know, neglect it to tell anybody about it,

  • if you actually look, how they work - they work based on the kind of model,

  • that Peter's talking about, because it starts off with a notion of self-determination,

  • but responsibility, collective self-determination and responsibility institutions, individuals, state -

  • all have the rights and the responsibilities.

  • So now you see, that you're having a complex system with a framework of guidelines,

  • that you can apply and of course there's going to be issues and times,

  • when they bump up against each other,

  • but we have to stop sitting around and sayingoh let's wait for somebody to bring this into being“.

  • No, we already have these systems, we have these blueprints and we can utilize them.

  • We utilize them in our community organizing - in a very diverse community

  • with people from all over the world, because they get it.

  • It's much easier, than talking about poverty or ecological disaster.

  • We talk about human rights and then we browded it in ecological needs and realities.

  • And in that way we connect the dots between the ecology, human rights, structural change,

  • systems change and the ability to finally hit that critical mass point.

  • PJ: Yeah.

  • [Applause]

  • Stay with us. You can do my speaking for me.

  • Q: So, this was very theoretical and ...

  • So, I work with Emily, I work with Lawrence with Toronto Tool Library

  • and we're part of the Institute for a Resource-Based Economy.

  • And in this presentation I don't think we heard a Resource-Based Economy once.

  • So I'm interested has your perspective changed or should we be renaming or organization?

  • [Laugh]

  • PJ: Remember as I said the very beginning, I've done so many talks and focused on so much

  • about the Resource-Based Economic model or Natural Law Resource-Based Economic model,

  • whatever you want to call it. And this was a variant of my presentation style.

  • Usually I'm all encompassing, so ...

  • I choose to go for the train of thought in description. When you start to label things -

  • again, you have that categorical thought problem and you end up with symbols.

  • And I'd rather avoid the symbols and names and titles and just go straight

  • to the jugular of the train of thought, because that's where the argument is.

  • So does that make sense? I have never changed my view on any of it.

  • There are subtleties, I think, that ...

  • I've educated myself about in terms, you know, this particular kind of thinking systemically is a little bit different, I think -

  • for example then the general model of the Resource-Based Economy proposed by The Venus Project.

  • There's actually far more centralization in their original proposal.

  • Then the decentralized reality that we've become to see so much more robust over the past 10 years.

  • So things are morphing and changing and then as they should, you know,

  • and things will change even more, but we don't know what's around the corner

  • in terms of what that core integral solution will be, that will really alter our framework

  • of what's actually going to work and what isn't.

  • Q: First of all thanks for the presentation, thanks for coming Peter.

  • PJ: I don't know where you are.

  • Q: I'm over here.

  • I actually have a three-part question and also a word of caution as well.

  • The three-part question - as an activist the barriers I hit up against most often are,

  • what that RBE idea sounds terribly useful and I think, they were to suit me down to the ground,

  • but how do we get there? I get that probably every 24 hours.

  • The second part is, how do you find hope in all of this,

  • because human evolution is so deathly slow, that it's very difficult

  • to actually spot it happening and I share ...

  • there's only so many times I can share Toronto Toil Library postings

  • and, you know, second videos of the Zeitgeist series and what else can I do, what else can be done?

  • And then the word of caution is actually about universal basic income

  • I've studied this, as well, personally and what I can't get to grips with is that,

  • if you understand the very basic laws of supply and demand in economics,

  • then you must also understand that.

  • if we give everyone, say I'd know, a thousand dollars a month,

  • then all the corporations will go on to this fact and say okay well

  • a cup of Starbucks is now $15 instead of $5

  • and a transatlantic flight is now $8000 instead of $800

  • and, you know, the cost of rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Toronto will go

  • from a $1000 a month average to $10000 dollars a month.

  • That's just basic inflation. So given thatthat's what we already know,

  • how on Earth can something like UBI work and is it not just, you know,

  • the last-ditch attempt by rich people to try and keep money relevant to humankind?

  • PJ: Okay. We'll go backwards.

  • First I agree with the caveat, that there is a dire multi-tiered ... I'll put it this way.

  • The general system has so many different externalities, that are negative,

  • that simply giving people a basic income doesn't solve so many other things,

  • that are being caused problematically caused by by capitalism.

  • So there's other things that have to be done, right? Obviously.

  • In the 1970s there was a big credit expansion. And it's, because that the economy was so bad.

  • They decided just give everybody credit. And you have credit card - a culture of credit cards,

  • where people are spending back into the system from loans

  • and that was what was driving economic growth at that time.

  • And that's precisely, what UBI could be used for so to speak,

  • where they're gonna give more money into his society that's dysfunctional,

  • that was great in the inequity, great imbalance, it's great …, you know,

  • 63% of the Americans don't have $1000 in savings.

  • When you resolved that little bit, you're actually removing a certain degree of angst.

  • You're creating a little bit of placation.

  • That's upside of it though.

  • So see my points, you placate people by giving them money,

  • therefore they don't question the system anymore, right?

  • And we have to question the system, because there's plenty of other things,

  • that are going wrong with the system, you can't ... there's no one fixed for this.

  • But the same time, if you give people money, you actually any educate them - I mean that's pivotal.

  • And they can learn and have time and to think and time to look at all the other problems.

  • They can have sustenance, to not have to worry about their job and their family every day like most do,

  • not have the stress of that and that much time alleviation, I think is what will

  • allow for the education of flourish and for all the other problems to be discussed

  • and inevitably those people will not be placated,

  • they will actually move and be motivated to change even more,

  • than they could when they were so structurally oppressed by poverty. Does that make sense?

  • So that's one side. I want to let you touch upon that, if you'd like to.

  • Would you like touch for them?

  • Okay. So the second question was hope.

  • Well, and I think that combines your first question,

  • which had to do with well how do we get there, right? That's a part of that process.

  • As I said in a conference two days ago, to have hope of is really a heroic act.

  • To be positive as a heroic act, as your hope is a feeling.

  • I'd say, it's synonymous with being confident, that something can be changed, right?

  • Yeah, we can play semantic games, but that's the way I interpret it.

  • And it's a heroic act to actually stand up and say yeah I'm confident, we can do this.

  • Even if you're standing the face and Tiananmen Square of a guy staying in front of a tank.

  • And that's the analogy, I use ... well, did he have hope, was he confident, but didn't matter,

  • because he did, what needed to be done and that is a shared value.

  • If we respect ourselves in society, it doesn't matter how many brick walls are build around us.

  • You have to keep that positive focus.

  • There's no way around it, because there's too much at risk.

  • Otherwise you might as, well, just slit your throat right then,

  • because the value of yourself is really so diminished, that you're so apathetic, you don't care basically.

  • So you have to strive for it as far as I'm concerned humans or humans we're all humans

  • we're thinking, we're doing things, we change humans thoughts, we can change society,

  • that's how it happens. The question is, how do we do it, that goes to your first question.

  • Well, there is a movement, there's multiple movements, it's an educational kind of process at this point,

  • but what I like to see happen and done on the heels of all this, is actually a development of project,

  • where a lot of the larger order structural changes that have spoken of over through the years,

  • not just the cybernetic stuff, even though I think that's integral.

  • It needs to be put into practice in research like through a university system.

  • The university project, excuse me, imagine all the universities in the world

  • taking on sustainable management and an economic sustainability management in this kind of thinking

  • and they all started to work together to create the actual systems.

  • Because when you look at this and on paper eventually this Resource-Based Economy

  • will be a series of symbolic algorithmic forms.

  • That's the way, it's going to come out through computer language

  • and the language of math and science, because that's ...

  • how what's going to be behind us, system be under the hood.

  • And that has to be programmed.

  • Because you're gonna have an autonomous system with all the properties of nature,

  • synergistically, recursive, all those things feed into it, it has to be designed.

  • So we talk all day about it, but someone has to step up and I can I've asked people to do this.

  • I did a lecture Economic calculation in Natural Law Resource-Based Economy in 2013 in Berlin

  • and I'd outlined this very large symbolic algorithm is general,

  • but I think it served its role. It's also in the two books that I wrote

  • and I that's really what I'm focusing on now.

  • if I had time to break away from all the other communicative things I'm doing,

  • I would try to get people together to start this programming project

  • and ideally get it picked up by universities and get grants for it.

  • If you set that in motion and it'd be over.

  • Because you would actually have something and provably testable scientific method to be put in place.

  • You could test it in small pockets, eventually be applied to a city somewhere

  • and how they manage their own local area.

  • I will say, what I believe will happen, because of more with less

  • and ephemeralization eventually technology to become so small.

  • Are you familiar with the term ephemeralization or more with less?

  • So at technology and processes using become so small and so effective,

  • such low amounts of energy and resource use to produce more and more and more.

  • that's not ... unheard of that. You're gonna have a society

  • with effectively a small 3D printing style - very diverse versatile system of production,

  • that can produce everything, say Toronto, ever needed.

  • Along with say vertical farm systems that do the same thing in terms of food.

  • So everything becomes localized, because of the progress of technology.

  • That will happen if we let it and you shut down globalization, as we know it economically,

  • and you start to localize, use more with less, efficiency will go exponential

  • and suddenly, you know, as an aside in fact, I was reading the exploitation of Latin and South America.

  • The reason, they've been so destroyed, is,

  • because they never were able to build their industries up enough to be independent.

  • And if you look at the behavior of Western hegemony, that's what they do.

  • They constantly destroy nations and hit them with sanctions to reduce their efficiency and independence.

  • And that is an unfortunate side effect of this and while on a political level,

  • on a social oppression level, on a human rights level.

  • You have to start getting off the grid as individual communities.

  • Again, going back to her question, you're never completely off the grid.

  • You're a part of everything else, but you want to create that independent viable system

  • for your community and region and it builds up systemically, you know, in that recursive sense from there.

  • So that's one idea.

  • So that's the kind of share I think about all the time.

  • And I think it can be done. I say it's too bad that we feel that staticness some ...

  • Anyway I keep ramming. Anybody else want to add some confidence for my friend over here?

  • ECD: So, like just in relation to that concept of hope

  • and how to foster that in people and get people thinking about the changes,

  • that need to happen and how to do it,

  • so the folks that started the Toronto Tool Library and Sharing Depot,

  • we all used to live communally in a house together my daughter included

  • and it was a really beautiful experience like talk about, you know, a world-changing way of living.

  • But I went out one day and got groceries and I think I refused a plastic bag,

  • because I carry a zero-waste kit as an act of defiance against plastic

  • and it starts a lot of conversations people are always asking like:

  • Oh my god why what's this bread bag why are you putting bread in this cotton bag?“

  • And the particular person, that I got that day, was angry about this my refusal of the plastic bag.

  • And she was like you'll never change anything like:

  • This is impossible. You know, it's everywhere, it's nothing we can do.“

  • And I went home kind of like bombed out and I went into the kitchen,

  • I swear to God one day I'm going to write a book called In the kitchen,

  • but the conversations, that we had in that kitchen, were like fantastic.

  • And I started talking to Lawrence and I was like:

  • Man like why are people so negative? I can't understand it.“

  • And he brought up the point that:

  • You know, like we kind of live in a bubble, because we are so engaged in the changes, that are happening.“

  • And I think that when people start getting involved in community projects,

  • whether it's a group that's, you know, promoting universal basic income

  • or whether it's somebody who's developing, you know, these big-picture technologies

  • like Blockchain, the Toronto Library Sharing Depot, you know -

  • that's all run by volunteers. The volunteers come into the space and run that thing.

  • The more you're involved in those things the more Hope is infectious.

  • So social media is extremely important,

  • like you talked about the photo of the guy standing in front of the tank,

  • that gets shared over and over and over again. Like it's amplified like crazy

  • and that in itself is a form of inspiring hope.

  • But I think the change really comes when you get out and you start acting in your community,

  • because people really ... that hope is infectious.

  • So that's all I would add to that.

  • JG: Yeah, of course, you know, in the current status quo any tool can be misused,

  • any idea can be co-opted. And that's something that we're all aware of.

  • So what's one of the reasons, why I'm advocating very much to ensure,

  • that basic income is brought in in the context of Human Rights.

  • So that government then takes on its responsibility to ensure rent control,

  • to ensure that, you know, the other parts of the economy don't leap on that

  • to try to suck it dry, which, you know, some will.

  • But the great thing is, you know, rather than … I have never ... Well, I shouldn't say that.

  • I have maybe once or twice in my life stepped into a Walmart.

  • We can starve the beast, right? We have so much material surplus

  • and now we have things like the Tool library and like. We just starve the beast.

  • So if they want to charge $8000 to fly across the ocean,

  • we'll live stream or we'll take a boat, you know. I'm saying like:

  • We feel so helpless? We have to stop being helpless. We are not helpless.“

  • I've been at this for over 30 years, I have grandchildren and I am ...

  • it's a struggle to be hopeful. I don't even really think about hope too much.

  • I think about determination.

  • I think about, you know, in warriorship in a sense about -

  • how I can take my rage of watching your generation, and my kids generation

  • be robbed of everything, that we were thinking, we were going to have in our future.

  • I take that rage and I channel it into determination.

  • So hope or not hope isn't really relevant to me.

  • It's I'm alive, I'm a human, I have children, I have to do this.

  • That's all there is to it.

  • And I make sure, I have as good a time as humanly possible doing it,

  • so as an antidote to knowing far too much and having seen far too much

  • and actually met some of those people.

  • Like face to face the people who destroyed our nation.

  • I have to live with that.

  • But I'm a human rights defender, so, you know, it gives me a sense of strength,

  • it gives me a sense of being grounded

  • and we all can and must do everything we can in our power, whether it's a small thing or a big thing.

  • And it's when we are doing things about it, then you have something stronger than hope.

  • You have purpose and you have in the knowledge, that you're doing what needs to be done.

  • And that's a far greater strength and motivation than any hope could ever be.

  • [Applause]

  • PJ: And there was one thing I remembered about the gentleman's question.

  • He talked about inflation.

  • Now that all is contingent upon where the money comes from.

  • Does it come from redistribution from the crazy billionaire class?

  • Does it come from government miss allocations and surpluses, that they have behind the scenes?

  • In this conference I saw so many different sources of this UBI.

  • It was really quite amazing.

  • And there is ... while inflation

  • if you inject money in this system - the basic money theory of inflation applies -

  • the more money in the system, the more that reduces the value of the money individually per unit.

  • But that's a pretty complicated process in general.

  • If the money is being put to use, it actually doesn't happen like that.

  • And I think legislation, if need be could put forward

  • to avoid the abuse of any kind of corporation, that wants to stick it to the consumer.

  • And keep in mind also, that there's a competitive quality too.

  • So unless there's a mass kind of monopolistic cartel,

  • where all the coffee shops get together does, you know,

  • go $8 a cup and force everybody to pay for it, they're not gonna do that.

  • They're gonna want to keep it as close as they can to be competitive and keep, you know,

  • the money, to keep the price as low as possible.

  • So it's not that simple. In other words, it's not an equation of much more money inflation just isn't that clear.

  • Q: Hey Peter.

  • As a Young Ling who first became excited and empowered with Zeitgeist Movement -

  • when I first began - I paid close attention to the Movement,

  • part of which involved watching your interviews, some of your interviews and debates

  • with certain figures a memorable, one was ... your one with Mark Dice

  • and your other one with Stefan Molyneux, who are both more or less

  • market advocates or libertarian types.

  • There are people who are prone to calling you a socialist or a Marxist, right?

  • So to be briefed in your third film.

  • You and ... in a few debates that you ... you've been in ...

  • you tended to denounced democracy as a means to reaching this your vision.

  • Has your position on democracy changed at all?

  • PJ: Would you find clarifying, what you mean by that,

  • because I've never denounced the idea of public participation in control

  • of their society and environment.

  • Now democracy can take on different meanings.

  • I don't denounce democracy and the basic Greek concept of it.

  • What I denounce is the pop culture version of democracy,

  • that we have instituted on the planet today. So it's specific to that.

  • I clearly believe, that humans need to have in this autonomous kind of logic as promoted

  • control and contribution to the world that's around them.

  • It has to be that way, otherwise people get alienated.

  • Even if their ideas are wrong, there is a reason for them to contribute

  • and the process, if it's working and as a proper referent, will weed out the correct over the ...

  • weed out the right, it's weed out the wrong, excuse me, over the right.

  • So, you know, if you have a economic democracy for example, where

  • yeah, I'll take it to that level.

  • So you have an economic democracy in the future, where people are going online

  • and they're accessing shared open-source systems that design goods.

  • So no more corporations.

  • What you have is a structure like this. People go on and on these systems,

  • they have a background and certain kinds of engineering and education, If they choose to.

  • By the way, not every human being needs to do this.

  • But this is how it would work for those that chose to contribute,

  • who are educated enough to program the language, that can design goods, you know -

  • CAD, 3D engineering and stuff like that.

  • So they go on, they produce this. They do it in a democratic Open Source way,

  • because they are engaging all these other designers to try and figure out,

  • how to make the best possible good for that point in time.

  • Now is that the only thing, that is in play?

  • No. You have that other level the environment of the system.

  • You have to account for the resources.

  • So, if you have resource scarcity on the planet that's clear,

  • you don't just start building things that clearly are gonna overshoot those resources.

  • So there's self limits, that are imposed by nature.

  • And if programed that improperly, you're gonna have a tight system,

  • where people respect the fact, that they're always working within the confines of what is sustainable

  • and they're always gonna work within the confines of efficiency simultaneously, because of the birth of AI.

  • you actually have systems now,

  • that can look at a design an engineer puts forward and analyze it for its integrity.

  • They can actually understand, if what they put forward matches the math,

  • that has been programmed into it.

  • Caveat of course used to rely on the algorithmic programming the integrity of all that,

  • but we have a world won by algorithms already that works pretty well on a basic technical level,

  • I'm confident it will work that way in the future two.

  • Point B. You have democratic participation within the environment of rules that are immutable

  • and invariant and dynamic, and that's why the system constantly updates

  • and tells you and gives you new information.

  • Oh, we're running out of this role this material in Africa

  • we're gonna have to substitute something else. So then BOOM.

  • The engineering team gets on the engineers know, what they need to do.

  • If they want to have this particular utility and a good, they have to find a substitute.

  • And automatic economic balance - homeostasis starts to be created based effectively around the laws of nature.

  • Q: So this is a question for the master storyteller

  • and then as a follow-up to Peter Joseph as well afterwards.

  • You showed us a clip from a movie that inspired you.

  • You mentioned, how watching the Zeitgeist films woke you up to another reality.

  • And I've watched all three films. I remembered, that … I think, it was the last film at the end

  • there was this difference between gluttony and people just throwing things away

  • and being wasteful and then an alternative to it.

  • And I was just touching on a storytelling aspect, that was interesting.

  • I've also read your new book - The New Human Rights Movement - and it's incredible.

  • And there's all these leading-edge concepts in them, that are real in the world today

  • and need to be grounded out and developed.

  • What I think needs to happen now, is some serious and effective storytelling.

  • The kind of stuff, that blows people's minds, sends them to the theaters

  • and the millions makes hundreds of millions of dollars.

  • And I just like you to touch on these amazing ideas

  • and how they can be spun and pushed into the mainstream to excite people.

  • And then following that, what Peter would say to that, as well.

  • ECD: Yeah. So I would say like, in terms of the movement like ... I would like to see

  • the global chapters social media become like have a unified strategy,

  • where that storytelling element is at the center,

  • because I can tell you from my experience with working with environmental organizations,

  • in social media including the Tool Library, the stuff, that really takes off, is the solutions.

  • People are not interested in being told that the system is shitty.

  • Just like in the film, where the girl is like sitting there with their hand out.

  • It's like what can we do, like we get it.

  • People are not interested in that. They want the solutions.

  • So the stuff that gets shared of our page is the Zero Waste Soap

  • and the bags, that get made out of reusable fabric

  • and, you know, the powerful impact of borrowing and the community aspect of it.

  • We ran a crowd fund recently too, because we didn't get a grant

  • and we needed funding for the organization and it took no time at all.

  • The thing just went nuts. It was surprising like it was shocking.

  • The community, that is rallying around this idea, loves that solution-oriented stuff.

  • So I would say in terms of like flushing out the story of the Zeitgeist Movement

  • and where those solutions are hiding - you just start storytelling

  • in a way that is a cohesive and comprehensive and consistent.

  • So that would be my answer to that.

  • PJ: Interreflections - the film I can't seem to make.

  • This entire idea of the film trilogy, that I'm doing, is all live-action.

  • It's all psychological. It's a multi genre piece,

  • that attempts to psychologically invoke certain emotions

  • related to the concepts put forward by the movement and the train of thought.

  • And effectively it's gonna work at multiple time frames at multiple levels.

  • It's partly documentary, it's partly extremely, I'd say, there's a horror element to it,

  • there's a quality to where examines society as we see it today,

  • but I put it in a horror movie context - in part, not that direct.

  • But the three films are gonna create an arc and it shows the movement of society to a new social system.

  • I don't want to give it away as far as how I do it. So I'm not gonna give you much detail.

  • But because it's multi-genre, I'm going at every angle of aesthetic that comes out in film.

  • So there's a comedic element, there's a musical element, there's a satire element,

  • there's a thriller element, there's again the horror element

  • and then there's the documentary element. That kind of underscores the whole thing.

  • It's a sci-fi movie, that's based upon cliches, that have existed throughout society.

  • It's it takes all the memes that we've been hearing today

  • from no heed from the school shootings to Occupy Wall Street,

  • to even the more solution area things, like decentralization, to Blockchain and Bitcoin -

  • all of this kind of stuff I'm printing this amalgamation to kind of ...

  • when people walk out of this thing ... people are gonna feel hopefully kind of inspired and overwhelmed,

  • but also ... the fundamental point of the film is vagary.

  • What I firmly believe is, that you hit people over the head look like a book like I wrote

  • okay, yep growley appreciated that, most people get through about a quarter of it

  • and they can't at their attention span ... can't handle any more of it.

  • That's a problem of society and the media as we know

  • and as social media unfortunately it does a little bit of that to people too.

  • Twitter culture can't think anymore - it's like just little fragments of thoughts.

  • I think that has an effect on a lot of people - not everybody. I'm not putting down social media.

  • But anyway.

  • So the vagary element ... I explicitly create scenes and and things,

  • that will get under people's skin through symbology

  • without ever really telling them what it means.

  • And that, I think, is one of the most important things about creative development is you don't want ...

  • you want people to walk away with it by making their own story of what, they just saw.

  • And that makes it their own sneaks behind their ego and suddenly when they realize something -

  • They realized it. They're the ones that came up with it.

  • Not somebody imposing their ideas upon them.

  • And I think that's a powerful level of creative development.

  • That's why music is so great, because music is generally ambiguous.

  • But it has kernels of direct communication, but the gesture and everything that's underneath it.

  • Everyone pulls a little bit something different out of it.

  • That's why songs have this life ... no one watches a movie 400 times.

  • People will listen to a song 400 times.

  • So I'm a musician at heart, so it's kind of where my sources.

  • Anyway.

  • Okay.

  • Q: I have two questions.

  • I got a question for brother Peter and I have a question for everybody in the room.

  • My first question is uh, right now, as far as I know the renowned scientists in the world

  • are working on the quantum computer

  • and I noticed in your video, you were showing a moment of when one of the first computers were being developed

  • and you were talking about, how important it was for the evolution of humanity.

  • Well, I don't know if people understand anything about the quantum computer,

  • but right now the computers, that we use, operate on the speed of light

  • and they can only equate ... they can only do one equation at a time.

  • With the quantum computer could do multiple equations at a time.

  • So it's going to change our reality and our world exponentially.

  • So I will have a question. My question is, do you have anything that you know ... or any vision

  • or any sort of relativity, that you would have to see, how that is going to impact humanity?

  • PJ: I think you kind of implied it's gonna change everything in terms of speed,

  • because what did the computer do is, they enable people to actually have time

  • to do other things while the computer crunched numbers.

  • And then you get outputs and then you build upon that,

  • but everyone's familiar with the exponential increased in technology, you know, like the Moore's Law chip -

  • The biggest computer and thalia chip in your phone -

  • obviously much smaller and letting users fund incredibly less power,

  • less resources and yet is a thousand times more powerful

  • and that's probably what quantum computing will do to the current digital state.

  • I agree with that.

  • So the exponential curve it's an information technology.

  • In other words information is behind all computing. That's ... It's informations code.

  • If you can convert any problem in society to information technology

  • and you can input that into a computer and then you put into a quantum computer,

  • you have huge massive increases in intellectual development in scientific inquiry.

  • So that's mind-blowing, where we could end up,

  • when it comes to really efficiently using the advancements, that are coming in all areas.

  • Does that make sense?

  • Every area. Its still amazes me like you. because everyone's like oh the exponential stuff

  • only applies to computers right now. And, of course, people will argue to say

  • well it's gonna stop, because the chip, you know, can't get any smaller“, right?

  • But then quantum computing comes along, says nope, we're gonna go far deeper now

  • and then you just could take all the disciplines, anything you create, any idea

  • and you put it into that language.

  • It's gonna be unbelievable.

  • Human life extension, you know. All sorts of things are gonna be resolved,

  • if we get past this hurdle, that we're currently in.

  • Also at the same time, you know, look at what we're doing - it's the war machine man.

  • And, you know, all technology gets the war machine first.

  • And we should be all be really terrified about what the Pentagon's of the world are doing

  • with their quantum developments and what that's gonna end up doing.

  • So there's always that double-edged sword.

  • That's the all Buckminster Fuller livingry versus weaponry contrast -

  • has do we do use this amazing stuff for good and development and livingry

  • or is it just gonna go straight to the war machine and destruction and weaponry so.

  • Q: Well said and then goes into how we need to program technology for the future,

  • so it doesn't do just that now. My second question is for everybody in the room.

  • Toronto is an initiative II word. It means meeting place.

  • Toronto is a special city. I just learned last night from overhearing conversation,

  • because I have ears like a satellite,

  • that Toronto is gonna be designated to be a test site for a smart City.

  • So everything I see you present ... in your presentation is relevant to us.

  • As it being the meeting place - this is the most diverse city in the world -

  • so everyone is coming to this city and gathering around the world -

  • All of our ideas, all of our cultures and all of our energies are emerging.

  • So this is a very pivotal place it is becoming the epicenter of the world.

  • So my question for everybody in the room is given the presentation

  • and given the knowledge, that we all collectively share in this room -

  • what are we gonna do about it?

  • [Laugh]

  • What are we going to do to preserve Toronto as that place?

  • What are we going to do?

  • [Applause]

  • JG: That's the always the most important questions? What are you gonna do about it?

  • I'd like to add to that story. There was a prophecy in this place -

  • in this meeting place about 500 years ago. And a indigenous woman prophesized,

  • that the peoples of the world would come together and begin to heal the planet from Turtle Island.

  • And she made that prophecy here in the meeting place,

  • because the peoples of this region used to come here to dialogue

  • and figure out, what they were going to do as they were doing their original democracy,

  • which we borrowed and screwed up.

  • So it is, there is a prophecy, that this is going to happen.

  • So the fact, that we are the most diverse place in the world

  • and we are here now, when this has to happen.

  • You asked about hope earlier and I shouldn't have said hope is kind of irrelevant, that's not really fair.

  • I should say that with lockchain technology, with things like the Zeitgeist Movement

  • in the last few years the rapid change of consciousness

  • and the rapid awakening of peoples and the speed at which that's occurring,

  • is giving me a great deal of strength and motivation and encouragement.

  • So I want to say that, you know, we can take ideas like the quantum computer,

  • like Blockchain, like the basic income and we have to remember,

  • that we are the people, who have to make it be, what we want it to be.

  • And we are in a great position to do that.

  • And we may also end up in 50 or 70 years being one of the last places on Earth,

  • where people can actually survive and thrive.

  • So let us not forget that, as we're thinking about being a smart city.

  • Has we got to feed? what's left of the world in 50 years, as our climate goes upside down, right?

  • So there's a lot we have to do. But we can do it. The thing, that's really hopeful and beautiful is,

  • that we are rising to the challenge and it's happening.

  • And all of you have been a part of that process.

  • So keep that up, keep moving and don't one of the ways to starve the beast is,

  • don't waste your time thinking and talking about fucking Trump, okay?

  • Spend your time thinking about, how we're going to not do that,

  • how we're going to be way better, right?

  • And how we're just gonna make shit happen different.

  • Don't get stuck in the boxes, don't get stuck in the assumptions,

  • don't get stuck in the bulshit model of monetary whatever it doesn't …

  • it never made sense and it really doesn't anymore.

  • And we know it. So it's … those of us, who put out these systems and ideas and concepts for people

  • to grasp and to go in and feel and touch, that are going to make that shift happen in such speed

  • it'll blow your mind. And I'm sure of it.

  • And I'm old enough to say, like many of my generation do:

  • Oh, it's all hopeless. It's too late. It is what it is“.

  • No! Bulshit!

  • You all are gonna change it quick and I know it so. Don't worry.

  • [Applause]

  • Q: I think, we'll take a couple more.

  • So I guess, this is to the whole panel. I'm here.

  • It's wonderful to talk about the advancement of Technology and the advancement of intellectualism

  • and all of these concepts that are very heady, but the whole talk tonight

  • I haven't heard too much about heart and about have the expansion of love

  • and the expansion of caring, which I think has to go hand in hand with our intellectualism

  • and our technology, otherwise we're too far on the left side and not enough on the right side.

  • And I know, that the Tool Library and that, is about creation, which is right brain thinking

  • and all that kind of stuff, but I think, that we haven't really talked

  • about expanding our heart centers so, that we are thinking about our everybody as ourselves.

  • X: You probably can't see me but, thank you for that question.

  • I think heart and compassion out of fundamental level is about including other people in your life.

  • So it's empathy, but it's also inclusiveness at the same time.

  • And, I think, we can relate it back to the previous question about,

  • how do you continue to treat Toronto as a meeting place, as people develop it as a smart city.

  • It's the same idea, how do you treat it as a meeting place, how do you have heart in a city,

  • that becomes increasingly technological.

  • I think that a smart city, what we say ... what we mean, when we say that, is that,

  • we are deliberately solving problems generally with technology.

  • But technology comes in many forms.

  • And we can think of technology as Artificial Intelligence and Blockchain,

  • which have a barrier to entry, that isn't available to most of us.

  • But technology ... the way, that we order ourselves, the way that we organize ourselves

  • and structure our organizations, that's also a form of technology.

  • And so the Tool Library, that's our attempt to develop a very rudimentary technology of inclusiveness

  • and hart, right? That's how you share yourself with other people

  • by creating, I don't know, a form of organization, that includes people

  • and that depends upon other people and the more people you bring in,

  • the more you have to share with each other.

  • So that's at a very basic level of what I think about introducing heart to this.

  • But maybe somebody else has something.

  • PJ: We'll go down the line.

  • It's a great open question.

  • My view is ... what is the condition reinforcing?

  • So, if we want a world where people are cooperative and empathic and caring and loving,

  • what facilitates that, because everything has a precondition.

  • And in our current system sadly enough the opposite is generally reinforced.

  • So what I would say is, that I think, that the collaborative side of humanity, you know -

  • we have sides, we do have a competitive side, we do have a collaborative side -

  • I would argue the collaborative side is actually more efficient and more productive

  • and also more natural to the human condition, but we are versatile species

  • and when we have to be competitive and harsh well, we're gonna survive and that's what happens.

  • And that's unfortunately, what the system ... that's its MO, that's what it does to people's psychology.

  • So systemically reducing people's empathy and ability to love.

  • And I think once the chains are broken, then our ability to actually be freely in path -

  • they can caring and respect strangers and not be fearful of each other -

  • that will finally be allowed to flourish naturally.

  • [Applaus]

  • JG: Yeah and to build on, what he said, you know.

  • There are folks working on a variety of ways of supporting facilitating that.

  • So that's one of the reasons, why I'm a human rights defender and educator,

  • because it is like the legal expression of love, if you like.

  • It is, you know, takes the great principles of humankind and flawed philosophies

  • and puts them into a structure, that we can actually utilize.

  • So, when we're building organizations, that are inclusive etc.,

  • we also have to be able to be structured and organized around how we make that really effective.

  • And there's a variety of tools, that we have currently, that we can utilize for that.

  • For instance building cooperatives. Cooperatives require self-determination, education,

  • respect all these things, they're like the organizational expression of human rights.

  • Blockchain technology, which allows, you know, a continual disbursement of accountability

  • and information and smart contracts etc.

  • So, that you can see out in the open everything, that took place and that can't be twisted or screwed up.

  • Is like the technological expression of a system, that can allow for human rights to flourish.

  • Not through a mediated the center, but person-to-person and indirect.

  • As it can also to our mediums of exchange and that's why we're also building a time bank.

  • Because the thing about a time bank, where people exchange time credits and services and the like,

  • is that a person's need actually creates wealth for the person that serves their need.

  • So a person, who is ill or tired or old or whatever

  • and can't deliver a service to the time bank,

  • creates wealth for those, who have the heart to come and help and take care of them.

  • And that wealth can then be generated further out into that system

  • and there's no debt, there's no interest, there's no exploitation, it's a universal value

  • and what is in the end more important than our time?

  • [Applause]

  • ECD: Thanks for that Melanie.

  • Just so everybody knows, I work with Melanie at Water Docs Film Festival

  • running the social media and I just want to say like just share a personal caveat that.

  • When I started working with Water Docs, you know, like I cared about the environment.

  • I cared about water, but through Water Docs, whose mandate is to make people fall in love with water

  • to the point, where you don't see yourself as separate from water.

  • Water is really you.

  • I fell in love with water in a way, that is extraordinarily difficult to describe.

  • Like when I see the stuff now with all images of the disasters, that are happening in the water,

  • I feel it in my heart in a way, that it's like it's devastating me.

  • So I think in that way like in environmental organizations,

  • like Water Docs film festival and Planet In Focus, that are centered around, you know,

  • documentaries, that are telling these stories and getting them out there,

  • but framed in a way that's action-oriented.

  • It's not depressing. It's likeyou can do something about that“.

  • That is also really important, so I would say that, you know, films and art

  • are on the same level as things like the Toronto Tool Library and sharing Depot.

  • Like I feel a similar way, when I go there and I see somebody returning a stroller,

  • that my daughter also uses on a regular basis.

  • Like that feeling of sharing an item within a community.

  • It's really hard to describe, but it just makes you feel like you are connected to something bigger.

  • And that, you know, we're all one and we all deserve access to all the things we need.

  • And I think building that infrastructure to tell all these stories whether it's through a space,

  • where people are coming in or whether it's through the documentaries and all that stuff.

  • It's all the same. It's all, you know, getting out of that socio-economic system story,

  • that tells us, that we're naturally competitive, that hierarchies are natural,

  • that we're naturally greedy. None of that is true.

  • It's just, that we're locked into that story.

  • So anything, that tells the opposite story, is going to help that heart piece.

  • [Applause]

  • Q: I apologize in advance, because I was actually gonna wait and see,

  • if there's maybe an opportunity after to ... maybe meet some people,

  • but based on the conversations that have been coming up.

  • It feels very organic, so I'm gonna go ahead and take a chance here at an opportunity.

  • Everything that's been talked about in terms of storytelling completely agree with.

  • And I mean I've been a big fan of yours Peter for many years since the documentaries came out

  • and Culture In Decline. Waiting on Interreflections.

  • And much like the analogy was made with the pin in Tomorrowland,

  • I think the same sort of thing like I watch her stuff and I said

  • finally someone is putting into words, what I've been feeling for so long.

  • One of the books that is considered canon, I guess among.

  • I'm a film and television writer, actor and one of the books that's considered canon

  • is the Hero's journey by Joseph Campbell. And Joseph Campbell says,

  • thatif you want to change the world, you have to change the metaphor“.

  • So I agree with everything, that you were saying about storytelling and I agree with everything,

  • that you are doing with your documentaries. And I have written a TV pilot,

  • where I'm trying to take all the ideas, that I have been inspired by by your work

  • and now put that into a sort of scripted form.

  • And Canada is not necessarily the greatest environment to get new shows on television.

  • I'll just say that.

  • So yeah, at the risk of being completely uncouth and a total dink.

  • I did bring a copy and if youno pressure ... I'm not trying to propose to you on the ...

  • I'm sure you have a plethora. Yes, bat ...

  • PJ: I'm happy to look at stuff. I always take time to look at materials people give me,

  • not only just to figure out, what they're doing, but also to be inspiring.

  • It's just another kind of input for me. So I'll just steal everything that you're doing and … :-)

  • Q: Thank you thank you. Alan Smithee, please. :-)

  • Yeah, I know, if nothing else even, if it would be possible to like.

  • Maybe shoot an email now and then consult: „Hey does this seem like I'm on the right track“.

  • and if no, I do my best.

  • PJ: I'll give you that ... so I'm happy to, you know. Cool.

  • Q: Appreciate, thank you for your work.

  • PJ: Yeah, thank you.

  • Q: Okay, thank you. And thank you everybody for speaking,

  • but I'm actually gonna direct this question to the two women appearing members of the panel

  • and just ... and I'm really grateful, that you've joined us.

  • And I'm appreciative of your acknowledgement of the land,

  • that we stand on and of Anishinaabe traditions and my question is related to that.

  • And now, that we're moving towardsthis movement as becoming much more mainstream

  • and institutionalized especially in academia, than it has been previously -

  • is there a difference between, what has been talked about today

  • and the way that many societies have lived their lives for tens of thousands of years

  • and continue to fight for the right to live their lives away -

  • and I guess, what is the danger of it becoming more mainstream

  • and in particular is there a role, that women have to play in honoring the traditions of the past

  • and ensuring that they always have a place in our future? Thank you.

  • JG: That's a big one.

  • Yes and yes and yes. I think, of course, there's dangers with anything becoming mainstream,

  • because, you know, the dominant elite will immediately try to seize upon it and toxify it, right?

  • It's like they did that with the civil rights movement. Next thing, you know, black culture

  • has become weaponized and the music, that, you know, we created to lift us

  • has been used to destroy us for example.

  • When it comes to the issue of women, you know,

  • I was involved in in various waves of feminist movements

  • and I think, you know, it's really really really important to me right now is,

  • that I want us as much as possible, to break out of every old paradigm, we have been draging behind us.

  • And that includes this gender battle, you know.

  • Like this is a big part of divide and conquer, that has been so successful, right?

  • If you divide the genders, divide the generations, right? Then you have make sure,

  • that you don't have family units, right? It means, everybody has to buy their own shit.

  • It's the perfect profit model. It's just logical according to their system.

  • When we break that down, it becomes much more like motherhood logic, you know.

  • Like motherhood has become an insult, right? In terms of intellectual capacity:

  • Oh that's a motherhood statement. As in naive and stupid.“

  • Well excuse me, I raised five children alone and I resent that deeply obviously,

  • but my point being, that all of what we're talking about, all the things, that we are doing,

  • are inherently by their nature - going to make it better and easier for women to thrive

  • and exist without being, you know, torn into a hundred pieces. You're a working woman, you're a mother,

  • you're this, you're that, you're a slut, you're a slave you're ... you know.

  • As we create these new systems, both women and men, will be able to evolve.

  • Past all this imposed gender role bulshit.

  • And we'll be able to have our own meaningful self-determination,

  • which is the ultimate expression of human rights.

  • Not all women are the same, not all women want to have children, not all women want to stay home,

  • we all need that freedom of choice and that's the whole point,

  • and that's, why we're trying to make systems, that allow for that,

  • because how else can we possibly evolve quickly enough?

  • If we're not able to do our best with what the gifts we are given, with what we have,

  • we're not going to make it.

  • But lastly I want to say about tradition and ancestry and the like.

  • Yes, there are many many things, that I think we're bringing forward into current day,

  • that we're remembering from the past,

  • whether it's first nations traditions or African traditions and the like

  • and I'm very blessed to work with young people,

  • who are doing a lot of really valuable work on that end,

  • because they're recognizing that, for instance, a diverse genetic person, like myself

  • or a diverse genetic group of people, needs a way to honor ancestry

  • and honor the Earth and honor each other in ceremony,

  • which is what humans have always done without appropriating and without going backwards.

  • And this is something, they're really working on.

  • And they've based it and found it on the idea and the love of water.

  • Which is in all of our bodies and is what we all are.

  • So, when we remember that and we think about that and we know that we transmute

  • into just other forms of energy, but we're always part of the DNA and the water, right,

  • then it becomes very easy for us, as diverse in different people's to act like a permaculture garden

  • and work together and help each other.

  • ECD: Yeah. I hope this doesn't derail it. I'm extraordinarily tired.

  • So getting into these like really high-level concepts might be a little tricky for me right now,

  • but I think that, like what you're mentioning in terms of throwing back to kind of a time,

  • where other cultures were already living in this lifestyle story, that we're talking about -

  • kind of goes back to the bonobo chimp thing, that you mentioned, where, you know,

  • we always talk about chimps as being our

  • where we've descended from and chimps are naturally in these hierarchies

  • and violent and oppressing their female chimps and all this stuff,

  • but we're also actually related to bonobos and bonobos had developed in this completely

  • different environment. Whereas the chimps evolved in a environment, where resources are scarce,

  • the bonobos were evolving in an area, where resources were abundant.

  • And they had a completely different social structure.

  • They were more matriarchal, they were more caring, you know, the young were cared for by the group,

  • there wasn't this like vicious violence and aggression, that was coming up.

  • So I think in a way we're trying to go there.

  • Like we're trying to take our species to a place, where this resources are scarce,

  • we have to be competitive, you know,

  • if somebody gets something, it means there's not enough for me.

  • We shift the environment to say no like resources are actually abundant.

  • And if we create that culture of sharing, we're already shifting back to that mindset.

  • And then the other thing, I would say about gender. Is it's extraordinarily important,

  • like what, you were saying, that this divisive stuff that happens.

  • In light of the me2 movement and all this stuff like ... it's important, that all these things come out

  • and we see them in the light and recognize that women are having a hard time in this male structure,

  • but I find, that a lot of the narrative, that's missing, is compassion for men.

  • Because men have also been ingrained in the system. Why are they acting like this?

  • Why are men putting down women like this? Why is rape a thing?

  • Why is there this culture of objectification and violence towards women like?

  • We really need to have that conversation. We can't just sit here and say:

  • It's men, that are doing this to women“.

  • Men have evolved inside this environment, just as we have.

  • They've been trained to see things in a specific way.

  • So we really need to have that dialogue and I'm not seeing it anywhere in the media.

  • So that's like, where we can all take that conversation -

  • whenever these me2 movement conversations come up, we have to say:

  • Hey, but wait a second. Like these people are not just bad people.

  • They've evolved in a particular environment to understand life in a particular way

  • and that's why they're acting like that. So how can we change the environment?“

  • So that men are not growing up in that mindset.

  • [Applause]

  • X: Thank you. As ... could be be the last question?

  • Q: Thank you. Very honored to have the last question, I can't believe, I got it.

  • First thing I want to say is, Peter I think, it's amazing that you're here

  • and having a conversation like this,

  • but I, when I think about the Zeitgeist Movement, I see it as a conversation,

  • I see it as an ongoing dialogue.

  • I think conversation and dialogue is really our only bulwark against

  • falling to, what I would call the dark arts, which I'll expand on later in this question.

  • And I promise you, there is a question at the end.

  • But one of the may the biggest contributions I see, that TZM brings to our political discourse

  • and especially you, Peter, as a spokesman for the movement or the leader of the movement really,

  • is the fact, that you raised the sanity waterline, okay.

  • And I think raising the sanity waterline is immensely important goal

  • that we all should have as people who are concerned with our political and social well-being.

  • So in terms of that, what do I mean, when I say that dark arts.

  • So from the less wrong wiki, what the dark arts are defined, as our rhetorical techniques,

  • that are crafted to exploit human cognitive biases in order to persuade to see

  • or otherwise manipulate a person into a irrationally accepting beliefs

  • perpetuated by the practitioner of those beliefs.

  • Now, when I've seen you engaged with critics of the Zeitgeist Movement or just getting involved

  • in political discussions, I've never seen you employ these dark arts.

  • I've always seen a strong commitment to rationality to consequentialism to focusing on to borrow

  • from your presentation, what works, right?

  • Being able to have a coherent conversation about what it is, that actually works,

  • requires a certain amount of rationality and in a refusal to engage with sophistry in a general sense.

  • And when I think about this issue and I think about, what you've done to raise the sanity waterline,

  • my mind immediately goes to two examples.

  • The first being your video the intellectual dishonesty and pathology of Stephen Molyneux.

  • That video is, I think, a clinic on how to identify and coherently and reasonably respond to,

  • what is blatant sophistry. And that's a challenge we all, I think, face.

  • And then the other example is, perhaps more comically - Louie, the logic gremlin from Culture In Decline -

  • where you refuse to capitulate to tone shaming and restricting the content of your message

  • and taking it away from rationalistic consequentialist grounds and into something that sounds better

  • or his buddy or buttery or more digestible.

  • So after saying all that, my question to you is as:

  • Someone, who is committed to these ideals of rationality and coherence and having a train of thought,

  • that is defensible in those ways, what can you tell us as aspiring advocates, to what we do,

  • what can we do better and what can we look for to make our message allow it to overcome

  • the very common dark arts, that we run into, that people like Steven Molyneux engage in

  • or people who would ... even a stands of supporters of TZM ... who would try to shame you

  • into changing the train of thought to something, that it just sounds better, feels better.

  • PJ: Okay, thank you.

  • I appreciate your comments and observations and compliment.

  • I don't know if, I'm that rational or whatever I am, obviously we're all irrational in different ways.

  • Because we're emotionally polluted, that's probably the wrong word, but yeah.

  • So, what I kind of think in my mind is, there's a signal-to-noise ratio,

  • when you're dealing with a given individual and the ideology or concepts they're putting forward.

  • You can kind of get to the bottom of it pretty quickly, when you talk to people, that have no argument,

  • because they instantly move into the dark arts, that you talked about.

  • It's a kind of manipulation process and most people unfortunately, that you speak with.

  • They're not thinking in terms ofcould have in seen somebody of something“,

  • they're not thinking in terms of trying to see eye-to-eye and hang engage a dialectic,

  • they're looking at it almost subconsciously for the standpoint of somebody looking next to them

  • and figuring out, who's right. And that is the pathology of Stefan Molyneux.

  • And that's many like him, that are not interested in what is truth,

  • they're interested in being perceived as a purveyor of it.

  • And that is unfortunately, I think, of an outcome of this hyper pluralism,

  • that's become even more politically exaggerated, where, you know, you turn on the ...

  • This is a bad example. It was a kind of a hypothetical example. It's not this extreme,

  • but and I also don't want to codify my respect for so-called academic experts,

  • because there's plenty of flaws there too in terms of the trajectory of learning and get a PhD ...

  • I considered a form of indoctrination in many cases.

  • Well let's say you turn on the TV and boom, you have a highly credentialed guy or woman,

  • that studied something extensively, they've been doing it for 30 years and they're on the show

  • and they have something to say, they've been working on it.

  • And then the same thing the split screen there's Joe Bob from Montana,

  • who happens to disagree with what this guy has to say.

  • And this is like some kind of entertainment thing to now and the Trump reality in the US,

  • which has now taken people that at least, were shamed enough down not to stick their head up

  • and act like, you know, and continue the pollution process.

  • They at least had a certain sense that maybe there's something wrong with their worldview,

  • whether it's bigotry or whatever or they're nationalists loyalty or loyalty to capitalism and so on,

  • the symbolic blocking of their minds, that's unfortunate the way most thing.

  • They think in terms of symbols. That's why we talk to people about a train of thought,

  • "like this - they're like ... that's just Marxism; is that the ... Comunism."

  • And that that's just they can't, because they're not either not educated enough to think long enough about it

  • or they have the vocabulary or they're emotionally polluted at the same time.

  • So, this it, again back the Trump thing - it's a unique quality.

  • I'm not trying to, you know, you just mentioned. Let's not talk about it,

  • but it's a unique sociological thing, because now all these people, that were under the radar,

  • will say, they were ducking down with their ignorance. They're all a lot again.

  • And they're being taken seriously.

  • I mean, you just have a holder in resurgence of all sorts of bogus -

  • nazism and eugenics and generally just belligerent bias of groups.

  • So I could probably keep rambling on. This is a very complicated question just ask me,

  • but so I look for these things and usually I can kind of feel it out, but generally speaking,

  • I don't like to debate with the traditional sense of any debate,

  • because right now pop culture debate is not based on the original Greek concept of debate.

  • It's not based on dialectic meaning point to point.

  • It's about trying to make an impression dominate.

  • That's why generally, if some was like you, should debate this guy.

  • I don't know how many people of emails like Peter you had debate with Jordan Peterson like ... No.

  • I don't want to talk to someone, who's so fundamentally polluted, it has such an ego, now has millions of dollars

  • and followers. There's no way, he'll ever turn around and say he's wrong, right.

  • There's no point. So I think the low-hanging fruit has a lot of value.

  • I mean obviously, we have to counter we can't just be around the choir.

  • But that's why I like the UBI people just all these great groups Bitcoin and Blockchain specifically,

  • all the people that are kind of inching into this territory.

  • Those are the ones I want to bring together. Those are the ones I need to fight.

  • And all the people on the fringe that are throwing stones and poop, yes ...

  • They're the ones you just continue to ignore, because they're gonna be forced to change regardless.

  • It's not an issue of like I don't want to respect them. But I don't respect Nazis for example.

  • They don't deserve ... if you don't respect general differences of people

  • and the sense of them and they need to live their lives their own way in with the confines ofcourse

  • of mutual respect. Do you know, what I mean by that?

  • Like if you can't be ... If you don't have any ideology to supports mutual respect,

  • then you're not in the human club anymore, because that has to be there.

  • Yeah, exactly. So hope that helps and thank you for the good question.

  • X: Excellent. Okay.

  • So I want to just thank you, sorry you gotta cut it.

  • Thank you very much to you, Peter, thank you for coming and sharing your knowledge,

  • Josephine, Emily all the volunteers, that made it happen.

  • Everyone thank you CSI, thank you oxygen, thank you Earth.

  • Awesome.

  • Thank you, thank you, thank you so ...

  • If you guys wanted to give us a hand, we can stack up all these chairs that would be hugely helpful ...

  • Transcript, Timing: Petr Taubinger Project: 201812121700 Version: 201812220000 Web: zeitgeistmovement.cz"

Q: I wanted to ask you this. What was it that happened - it's not very clear, what this was ...

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

2018-03-27_ピーター・ジョセフ&フレンズ - バイアブルシステム_トロント_パート4_QA (2018-03-27_Peter Joseph & Friends - The Viable System_Toronto_Part 4_ QA)

  • 26 1
    王惟惟 に公開 2021 年 01 月 14 日
動画の中の単語