On May 07 2012 15:53 xeo1 wrote: human nature: We are not born with greed, envy, hatred or bigotry. Our behavior and values are reflective of the culture we are exposed to.
Yes we are born this way. Our behavior is surprisingly close to animals, which we are. We have evolved hundreds of thousand years, and civilization have existed for barely 5.000 years. Greed, envy and other basic emotions are instincts humans are born with, because one time they served a purpose (however, because we are human it is possible to control emotions to a certain level).
Culture is just the context of human behavior. Another culture, another religion etc...
Take away money, and something will replace it.
Proof for macroevolution? I've never seen any...try again.
On May 07 2012 22:12 AbuseYouMerc wrote: 2) Resources are unlimited
False. Holy cow this is false... I cant even comprehend how people think we have unlimited resources in this world. Ever heard of oil? My god are you ignorant if you support this statement.
Words to learn.
Abundant Scarce Unlimited
Unlimited and abundant is not the same thing. OIL is considered scarce.
There is alot of things that we have abundant of and a few things were scarce on. Alot of times we measure whats abundant and scarce by how long it takes for our planet to create more of it.
Making up statement that people dont make does not make them ignorant it makes you ignorant, I also wanna state that 95% of what you say is outright incorrect just like 1+1 dont equal =38
Economically speaking anything that is not infinite and freely available, is a scarce good. So anything that is sellable is scarce. Your claim that we have only a few things that are scarce is not conistent with this definition. At all.
On May 07 2012 20:46 Crushinator wrote: Are you denying the existence of a human nature? Because that would actually be ridiculous.
I don't know if greed, envy, hatred and bigotry are inherent. But identifying with groups is a cultural universal, everyone in all cultures that have ever been looked at do it. A natural consequence from identifying with groups is feeling animosity towards groups that are percieved to be opposing to your own. Our brains are naturally wired to favor generalizations based on fuzzy reasoning.
Very few humans lose the ambition to improve their own situation, to increase their well-being, no matter how well-off they are already. Pretty much everyone feels envious to some extent when someone else recieves something they would have wanted for themselves.
All of these things can be overcome, but denying their existence is not a good idea.
Where did I deny its existence? It's the nature of human nature that is being debated.
Human nature refers to the distinguishing characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting, that humans tend to have naturally, i.e. independently of the influence of culture.
Greed, envy, hatred and bigotry have no meaning outside of cultural context. A human will seek to satisfy his needs, but he has no inherent motivation to go out of his way to hoard artificial wealth or profess hatred of others based on irrational concepts.
This is not true. If everything were purely based on ones cultural upbringing, people would be a lot more similar. Furthermore, predisposition to certain behaviours is natural. People are biologically programmed to act in certain ways. Sometimes temtations and urges can be resisted, other times not.
Take people with chronic depression for example. What part of culture teaches you to wake up hating yourself, hating life, and wanting to leave this place everyday? The answer is no part of culture. You are just chemically balanced to feel like shit. The entire point of life is self preservation, yet you are born to sabotage your most basic function, to live.
To claim a desire for power is not natural is totally false also. There are verying degrees to which this is true, but there is no doubt a desire for power is very human. Sex can be used to show power and dominance. This can be harnessed positively, or quite disgustingly negatively. Do you think culture breeds pedophiles and rapists? Last time I checked, Toronto's culture didnt promote either of those activities. Most peoples parents didnt promote those behaviours, nor did their schools. I have never come across a person, place or thing that promoted such activities as part of our cultural upbringing.
Hatred is also natural. We naturally feel threatened by certain people or groups of people. Let's say you have a girlfriend, and you are out and some douchebag guy comes grabs her inappropriately. You instantly hate that person. The feeling of hatred will fill you and you will respond aggressively because you are programmed to defend your partner, and to ward off "predators". It is a natural reaction.
Bigotry I dont think belongs in this category, because it is entirely different. Bigotry isnt a natural emotion, it is cultural. You are told to hate certain people for certain arbitrary charecteristics they have, which have no real reason to be looked upon negatively (ie: skin colour, sexual preference, etc... have no actual bearing on you being a normal functioning member of society. They dont harm anyone, or impede their progress, so there is no reason to view them as opposition, other than cultural bias).
There are thousands of other examples I could list, but there is no point since the above should be sufficient.
On May 07 2012 17:26 Szordrin wrote: that would be the correct link for the incentives video btw. A very interesting one btw.
The thing about this Zeitgeist Movement, Free World Charter, Venus project etc. is that they see problems which exist and are problematic but then apply concepts and ideas that simply can't work out. This then results in people taking serious concerns a lot less seriously because its basically just crazy people talking...
Jacue Fresco and Peter joseph are some of the most well educated people that understand how people work.
Are they? Wikipedia says Fresco is self-educated and Joseph is listed as just a film director.
What makes them well educated? What research (not storybooks) have they done that demonstrates their understanding?
In an ideal world you can live without money by simply "cooperating", its possible now, it will be possible in the future, it was possible since 5000 years ago, its not practically possible, its been tried, it sucked... sorry :/ Also, this isn't worth a thread, i don't know who the guy is but he is retarded, he does not mention any of the: - How are you motivated if not by money ? How to you stop everyone from being to based on the social side of thing resulting into the utter chose that is every other species - How to you transition from money to no money ? How to you convince companies to "share" what they have ... the communists did that once, it was about 5% of the population of Russia dead in 1 year and the creation of URSS... that worked out well didn't it ? He just says: Wouldn't it be great if we all lived in a better world with better living conditions... to which is say yes it would, everyone agrees, until someone ( that someone being a team of capable majors consisting of thousands of people from economists to physicists ) says "here is how the perfect world looks and how we transition into it", its all bull crap that isn't even worth discussing.
On May 07 2012 17:26 Szordrin wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc that would be the correct link for the incentives video btw. A very interesting one btw.
The thing about this Zeitgeist Movement, Free World Charter, Venus project etc. is that they see problems which exist and are problematic but then apply concepts and ideas that simply can't work out. This then results in people taking serious concerns a lot less seriously because its basically just crazy people talking...
Jacue Fresco and Peter joseph are some of the most well educated people that understand how people work.
Are they? Wikipedia says Fresco is self-educated and Joseph is listed as just a film director.
What makes them well educated? What research (not storybooks) have they done that demonstrates their understanding?
Here Peter joseph demonstrates his understanding.
Here is jacue fresco
Eienstein didnt go to school which is one of the reasons he turned out like he did. So far i havent seen anyone able to speak clearer and wiser then these two but there are alot of good ones out there tho and please feel free to share.
On May 07 2012 17:26 Szordrin wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc that would be the correct link for the incentives video btw. A very interesting one btw.
The thing about this Zeitgeist Movement, Free World Charter, Venus project etc. is that they see problems which exist and are problematic but then apply concepts and ideas that simply can't work out. This then results in people taking serious concerns a lot less seriously because its basically just crazy people talking...
Jacue Fresco and Peter joseph are some of the most well educated people that understand how people work.
Are they? Wikipedia says Fresco is self-educated and Joseph is listed as just a film director.
What makes them well educated? What research (not storybooks) have they done that demonstrates their understanding?
Eienstein didnt go to school which is one of the reasons he turned out like he did. So far i havent seen anyone able to speak clearer and wiser then these two but there are alot of good ones tho and please feel free to share.
What are you talking about? Einstein did most definitely go to school.
On May 07 2012 17:26 Szordrin wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc that would be the correct link for the incentives video btw. A very interesting one btw.
The thing about this Zeitgeist Movement, Free World Charter, Venus project etc. is that they see problems which exist and are problematic but then apply concepts and ideas that simply can't work out. This then results in people taking serious concerns a lot less seriously because its basically just crazy people talking...
Jacue Fresco and Peter joseph are some of the most well educated people that understand how people work.
Are they? Wikipedia says Fresco is self-educated and Joseph is listed as just a film director.
What makes them well educated? What research (not storybooks) have they done that demonstrates their understanding?
Here Peter joseph demonstrates his understanding. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7CQUbcn7Bk Eienstein didnt go to school which is one of the reasons he turned out like he did.
I'm sorry but it's obviously politically inclined. Replacing a system with another system is a political question, and politics and economics are (obivously) intertwined. I might comment more after I'm done watching the video, but it's, as has been pointed out by others in this thread, quite obvious that only people who do not understand the world would advocate this charter or the Zeitgeist movement.
Edit: He's actually claiming that government serves no purpose. It's all a manipulationscheme. Fantastic. I think it's safe to say that he has no understanding of the world what so ever. He even mentions property crime/violence as if it's the governments fault, and that without government they'd magically disappear. Apparently the government creates jealousy and shortage, even though empirically the opposite is true. Not to mention the root of the problem, the changes he advocates (removal of the economic system) will only happen through government, because if it doesn't it will be either through a dictatorship (and then he can throw all his freedomtalk out the window) or anarchy (which wont work either, but that's another debate - but realize that what he proposes requires extreme logistical and technological cooperation and proficiency within an extremely efficiently structured society). Perhaps he should take some courses in conflict studies, and maybe some economics aswell.
What are you talking about? Einstein did most definitely go to school
Yes i was thinking about another mathmatician. i was thinking about one of his qoutes imma find it. here it is
"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education" -Albert einstein was another one to i cant find it.
Can you find me an economist that supports your worldview? Doesn't have to be a very prominent one, just a guy that has atleast been published in a journal.
On May 07 2012 17:26 Szordrin wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc that would be the correct link for the incentives video btw. A very interesting one btw.
The thing about this Zeitgeist Movement, Free World Charter, Venus project etc. is that they see problems which exist and are problematic but then apply concepts and ideas that simply can't work out. This then results in people taking serious concerns a lot less seriously because its basically just crazy people talking...
Jacue Fresco and Peter joseph are some of the most well educated people that understand how people work.
Are they? Wikipedia says Fresco is self-educated and Joseph is listed as just a film director.
What makes them well educated? What research (not storybooks) have they done that demonstrates their understanding?
Here Peter joseph demonstrates his understanding. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7CQUbcn7Bk Eienstein didnt go to school which is one of the reasons he turned out like he did.
quite obvious that only people who do not understand the world would advocate this charter or the Zeitgeist movement.
People say alot of things thats incorrect but whats funny is how people make comments like this not only are they incorrect but backwards complete opposites. Without an understanding of the world you can never realy understand any of this stuff because you do not have any points of refrence. a Comment such as Communist russia or human nature imedietly shows a limited understanding of how the world works and of human beings.
But from their perspective people like me appear the naive fool how can you belive in that stuff its laughable untill its not.
What are you talking about? Einstein did most definitely go to school
Yes i was thinking about another mathmatician. i was thinking about one of his qoutes imma find it. here it is
"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education" -Albert einstein was another one to i cant find it.
Can you find me an economist that supports your worldview? Doesn't have to be a very prominent one, just a guy that has atleast been published in a journal.
On May 07 2012 17:26 Szordrin wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc that would be the correct link for the incentives video btw. A very interesting one btw.
The thing about this Zeitgeist Movement, Free World Charter, Venus project etc. is that they see problems which exist and are problematic but then apply concepts and ideas that simply can't work out. This then results in people taking serious concerns a lot less seriously because its basically just crazy people talking...
Jacue Fresco and Peter joseph are some of the most well educated people that understand how people work.
Are they? Wikipedia says Fresco is self-educated and Joseph is listed as just a film director.
What makes them well educated? What research (not storybooks) have they done that demonstrates their understanding?
Here Peter joseph demonstrates his understanding. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7CQUbcn7Bk Eienstein didnt go to school which is one of the reasons he turned out like he did.
quite obvious that only people who do not understand the world would advocate this charter or the Zeitgeist movement.
People say alot of things thats incorrect but whats funny is how people make comments like this not only are they incorrect but backwards complete opposites. Without an understanding of the world you can never realy understand any of this stuff because you do not have any points of refrence. a Comment such as Communist russia or human nature imedietly shows a limited understanding of how the world works and of human beings.
But from their perspective people like me appear the naive fool how can you belive in that stuff its laughable untill its not.
The point is that the people advocating this are misunderstanding the problem gravely. And if you want to argue against power over others, over resources and over land, being in our nature then you're going to have an uphill battle to fight against all the empirical and historical evidence going against you. What we have done today is organize society in such a way that we minimalize this problem within our nature to avoid conflict. Joseph, however, claims that our current society somehow is the root of all evil. This isn't an accurate world view, in fact it's very far from it. And the USSR references are in fact also relevant, although less so. They are relevant in the manner that the state would have to allocate resources to all individuals as all resources are limited. Our current system does this automatically, and enables freedom for people to choose, and for people to climb up the social ladder. It's not perfect, but it works. Personally I advocate a security net for people who get royally screwed by capitalism, a hybrid, a middle road, something which we've already had in Sweden for a long time. But going "Yeeeah, this system we have, it's atrocious. We need to throw it away and go back to the drawingboard because bad things happen under it." is silly when there are no viable alternatives which are better. Joseph and anyone sharing his view, then, do either not understand the world or are delusional of it.
Edit: By the way, your post didn't actually have any content other than "lol you're all silly!". Might want to work on that if you want to present yourself as someone serious and worthwhile listening to if you want to convince people of this idea of yours.
What are you talking about? Einstein did most definitely go to school
Yes i was thinking about another mathmatician. i was thinking about one of his qoutes imma find it. here it is
"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education" -Albert einstein was another one to i cant find it.
Can you find me an economist that supports your worldview? Doesn't have to be a very prominent one, just a guy that has atleast been published in a journal.
Can you find a reasonable person that dont?
Well Milton Friedman is probably a reasonable person, by anyones measure, seeing as he won a Nobel Prize and all. He strongly advocated free markets and monetary policy. If I want to find out how he arrived at his conclusions I can read his work, his well-written, lucid, coherent, peer reviewed ideas. When I then have a good idea about the actual idea of it, I can attempt to tear it apart.
For your side, all there seems to be is a vague youtube video made by some guy that promises an end to poverty and war. Without actually explaining the mechanics behind it. For all I know the mechanics behind it is the magic wand of a faery.
Find an automaton that can valet my car, bring my luggage up to my room, and bring me a cocktail without me having to get up. For that matter, find me an automaton who can wash my car as well as a hand wash... I haven't found one of those yet, lets start there.
I like paying people to do work. Makes my life better. screw automation and this silly system.
Is it unreasonable to want peace Is it unreasonable to want to end starvation Is it unreasonable to want to end thrist Is it unreasonable to want equality Is it unreasonable to want freedom Is it unreasonable to want respect Is it unreasonable to assume that things change Is it unreasonable to assume that if we can destroy the world we can build it Is it unreasonable to assume that people are afraid of change Is it unreasonable to assume that if you treat people well, they treat you well back. Is it unreasonable to not accept people being treated poorly because they dont have any money Is it unreasonable to not accept people dying because they dont have any money Is it unreasonable to not accept technology being halted because you cant make money of it Is it unreasonable to not accept the world we live in as the last stage of our evoution
Is it unreasonable to try and find the most practical solutions to solve our problems? is it unreasonable to assume that if the majority of the population knew how to solve our problem it would not exist?
On May 07 2012 22:12 AbuseYouMerc wrote: 2) Resources are unlimited
False. Holy cow this is false... I cant even comprehend how people think we have unlimited resources in this world. Ever heard of oil? My god are you ignorant if you support this statement.
Words to learn.
Abundant Scarce Unlimited
Unlimited and abundant is not the same thing. OIL is considered scarce.
There is alot of things that we have abundant of and a few things were scarce on. Alot of times we measure whats abundant and scarce by how long it takes for our planet to create more of it.
Making up statement that people dont make does not make them ignorant it makes you ignorant, I also wanna state that 95% of what you say is outright incorrect just like 1+1 dont equal =38
Economically speaking anything that is not infinite and freely available, is a scarce good. So anything that is sellable is scarce. Your claim that we have only a few things that are scarce is not conistent with this definition. At all.
Apart from your own flawed argumentation as an answer to my post, it makes me even more sad that you can only pick on a certain word I used to describe my argument.
Instead of countering my post with your own arguments, you fall to the lowest form of debate; trying to nitpick small things instead of trying to be coherent with the big picture.
The sad part is however, that about 90% of the posts here are constructed like that.
I weep for humanity!
By the way, just so the whole 'irony' is gone:
Water = scarce (wiki it, dont be dumb) in fact, i dont trust your ability to search for stuff, so here: http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/index.php?id=25 Food = Scarce (wiki it, same story) Energy recourses are scarce.
Good day sir
edit: misqouted, obviously a response to the Delicious poster
On May 08 2012 03:56 DeliCiousVP wrote: Is it unreasonable to want peace Is it unreasonable to want to end starvation Is it unreasonable to want to end thrist Is it unreasonable to want equality Is it unreasonable to want freedom Is it unreasonable to want respect Is it unreasonable to assume that things change Is it unreasonable to assume that if we can destroy the world we can build it Is it unreasonable to assume that people are afraid of change Is it unreasonable to assume that if you treat people well, they treat you well back. Is it unreasonable to not accept people being treated poorly because they dont have any money Is it unreasonable to not accept people dying because they dont have any money Is it unreasonable to not accept technology being halted because you cant make money of it Is it unreasonable to not accept the world we live in as the last stage of our evoution
Is it unreasonable to try and find the most practical solutions to solve our problems? is it unreasonable to assume that if the majority of the population knew how to solve our problem it would not exist?
Whenever someone asks difficult questions you seem to resort to this kind of empty rhetoric. I really wish you wouldn't
What are you talking about? Einstein did most definitely go to school
Yes i was thinking about another mathmatician. i was thinking about one of his qoutes imma find it. here it is
"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education" -Albert einstein was another one to i cant find it.
Can you find me an economist that supports your worldview? Doesn't have to be a very prominent one, just a guy that has atleast been published in a journal.
Can you find a reasonable person that dont?
Well Milton Friedman is probably a reasonable person, by anyones measure, seeing as he won a Nobel Prize and all. He strongly advocated free markets and monetary policy. If I want to find out how he arrived at his conclusions I can read his work, his well-written, lucid, coherent, peer reviewed ideas. When I then have a good idea about the actual idea of it, I can attempt to tear it apart.
For your side, all there seems to be is a vague youtube video made by some guy that promises an end to poverty and war. Without actually explaining the mechanics behind it. For all I know the mechanics behind it is the magic wand of a faery.
And what do you offer in defence ? i offer information material studies why do you want me to send you a 1000 page book i send you whats available and in the most advanced format i can find. a "youtube" video can be 10 times as moving as a book.
People cried what would incentivize people and boom a video shows up explaining everything about it showing a study that is related to the exact question they asks and even your "economist were there on the test".
Yet people still bringing it up why? You wanna speak you wanna get answers then stop using the language of war and start using proper language. Example.
There is no way this will ever happen - War language Hmm so exacly what would people do all day? - Communication
On May 08 2012 03:56 DeliCiousVP wrote: Is it unreasonable to want peace Is it unreasonable to want to end starvation Is it unreasonable to want to end thrist Is it unreasonable to want equality Is it unreasonable to want freedom Is it unreasonable to want respect Is it unreasonable to assume that things change Is it unreasonable to assume that if we can destroy the world we can build it Is it unreasonable to assume that people are afraid of change Is it unreasonable to assume that if you treat people well, they treat you well back. Is it unreasonable to not accept people being treated poorly because they dont have any money Is it unreasonable to not accept people dying because they dont have any money Is it unreasonable to not accept technology being halted because you cant make money of it Is it unreasonable to not accept the world we live in as the last stage of our evoution
Is it unreasonable to try and find the most practical solutions to solve our problems? is it unreasonable to assume that if the majority of the population knew how to solve our problem it would not exist?
Whenever someone asks difficult questions you seem to resort to this kind of empty rhetoric. I really wish you wouldn't
Thats the only thing they can do because they have NO arguments.
EPT
