Yeah see small autonomous communes are still going to be reliant on the
outside world for a vast amount of resources. Basically everything except
food, unless people want to live in mud brick houses bathing in creek water
& to the person who pointed out that there are central banks in every
country, the point is not that they are there, the point is who owns them.
Public or private? Watch "The Money Masters" & you'll understand why it's
important
Zaq - "The Money Masters" only outlines & provides a solution for the
problem of U. S. debt. It is nowhere near as far reaching as "Zeitgeist:
Addendum"
Regarding memory steel, I've got no idea how much there is, but I would
hazard a guess that "abundant" is prob'ly not the word to use
What do I propose? Dunno. Planning on going back to uni to study
environmental economics & resource management. For now, by no means do I
think we're f#cked. There's a problem though & no perfect solution
To some extent I have faith in the free market. As demand for resources
increases, supply will become tighter, driving up prices, hence driving down
demand
At the same time though, higher prices will lead to an increased rate of
resource depletion, though this will be somewhat balanced by increased
scarcity. There's only so long you can keep a finite resource cheap
So eventually recycling will become more cost effective. Hopefully we put
in place the financial incentives to fund a sustainable society sooner
rather than later, because the squeeze will only get worse the longer we
wait
That's what interests me now, basically. Industries that have no place in a
sustainable future should be allowed to collapse (any publically funded
bailout of General Motors worries me, for example)
Essentially at some point the people running the show are going to have to
realise that you can't base an economy on exponential growth in consumption
in a world of finite resources.. & they're going to have to change tack
People are going to have to find new jobs & the transition is going to suck
for a fair chunk of the population. Hopefully people will adapt / evolve /
whatever though & find fulfilment in new positions in new industries
I wonder sometimes whether we're the first species on this planet to
recognise that we're approaching the carrying capacity of our environment.
When I think that maybe we are, it kind of excites me
Techno fix after techno fix after techno fix isn't exactly ideal, but the
alternative of mass suicide isn't exactly a cruisy way to "save the planet"
& alleviate food shortages, preventable or otherwise, either...
-----Original Message-----
From: teflonskin@gmail.com [mailto:teflonskin@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
joshua.
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 10:51 PM
To: idm hyperreal
Subject: Re: [idm] Zeitgeist: Addendum (OT)
In my mind, the unfortunate truth is that humanity isn't necessarily capable
of coming up with a workable answer. time and time again we have come up
with solutions to problems, but they have consistently outpaced our ability
to rationally implement them in a way that is not destructive. we became
masters of our environment due to an evolutionary trait that allowed us the
ability to have abstract reasoning. the argument can be made that since the
introduction of agriculture, we have pretty much stopped evolving entirely,
when you understand that evolution isn't advancement, it's adaptation. our
problem solving skills have led us to create more and more complex systems
for us to exist inside of, and we have a wealth of information at our
fingertips now. is this evolution? no. it's advancement.
i don't honestly think that any utopian projects for saving the world can
work, i don't think that our species is equipped with the ability to get
along with one another, we are still a tribal, destructive monkey creature,
this has not changed since recorded time, and i don't see it changing any
time soon. I don't know much about the Venus project, but i would guess
taking stock of the worlds resources and figuring out how many people could
live on the planet in their utopian future would bring them to the
realization that quite a lot of people are going to have to die. I think the
numbers are that before the industrial revolution there were never more than
1bil humans on the planet. As soon as we have programmable matter, we will
use it to kill people. we will create diseases and weapons with it so that
we can kill our enemies. anything good that will be done with it will be
saved for the rich, or manufactured for the poor and distributed by the
rich.
i think that the only way we can achieve a utopian future is by coming out
as survivors on the far side of a global meltdown, which is sad and
unfortunate... we are not a very proactive species, but rather very
reactive, and that means that we continually respond only after it's too
late.
what I would propose, if we were to try and keep a standard of living that
is anywhere close to what we have now, and really, it could lead to higher
standards of living, are small autonomous communes that govern themselves on
a societal basis. You would have your farmers and agriculturalists who
provide food for the commune, and in return all of their other needs such as
shelter, goods and liesure time are provided by the rest of the group. they
would only have to work in four hour shifts a few days a week, leaving them
plenty of time to pursue what it really is that monkey creatures want to do,
which is sit around and feel the warm sun on their skin. each commune would
also have a working class that produced some good that was used for trade in
the outside world with other autonomous communes, they too would work four
hours a day just a few days a week with the rest of their time left to doing
what they want with their lives. and on top of that a dedicated community of
artists and scientists producing the advancements that make us so giddy. it
would just be that there would no longer be a controlling interest in these
advancements and people would be free to create as they see fit. the
communes would have their own guidelines for participation in the system,
and offenders would be ostracized from the group, as the only way systems
like this can work is if everyone involved is personally responsible to
everyone else, which is why these would have to work on small scales of
perhaps... 1,000 people per group as a top number maybe. i dunno, i'm no
social scientist.
it's not a complete theory, and i'm sure there are oh so many holes in it,
but it's what i think, i just don't know that it's possible.
---------
joshua.
i'd rather die terrified than live forever.
2008/11/12 Z Moser <roachgod69@hotmail.com>
quoted 3 lines BTW. Sam. What do you propose? Have you come up with any viable solutions
>
> BTW. Sam. What do you propose? Have you come up with any viable solutions
> on your own. Or do you think there is no solution? Or do you think therequoted 32 lines no problem?
> no problem?
>
> zaa
>
>
>
> > From: roachgod69@hotmail.com
> > To: idm@hyperreal.org
> > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:30:27 +0000
> > Subject: RE: [idm] Zeitgeist: Addendum (OT)
> >
> >
> > I get what you are saying. From what I understand of the of the Venus
> > Project another one of the first steps is to take an accounting of the
> > worlds limits in order to see how many people it can support in a
> > stable ecosystem and with the building materials available or new ones
> > that we will come up with. We are already in the first stages of
> > producing programmable matter that takes on the properties we assign
> > it. Do you know how much steal is available at this point?
> >
> > Ill will check out Money Masters. Does it provide solutions, or only
> outline a problem?
> >
> > zaq
> >
> >
> > > From: sam@forum8.co.jp
> > > To: idm@hyperreal.org
> > > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:50:24 +0900
> > > Subject: RE: [idm] Zeitgeist: Addendum (OT)
> > >
> > > Check out a movie called "The Money Masters". It's a 3 hour + doco onquoted 1 line fractional reserve banking system run by a private central bank sucks.
> > > fractional reserve banking system run by a private central bank sucks.quoted 1 line not saying I agree with the plan proposed in that either, I'm just
> > > not saying I agree with the plan proposed in that either, I'm justquoted 1 line seems a lot more practical than our utopian friends at The Venus
> > > seems a lot more practical than our utopian friends at The Venusquoted 4 lines The other reason I thought the new Zeitgeist movie was a bit too
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The other reason I thought the new Zeitgeist movie was a bit tooquoted 1 line that I'm very much unconvinced that we live in a world of abundance.
> > > that I'm very much unconvinced that we live in a world of abundance.quoted 1 line would hardly say we have an abundant supply of whatever that form of
> > > would hardly say we have an abundant supply of whatever that form ofquoted 1 line was that they proposed to build their cities on water out of (memory
> > > was that they proposed to build their cities on water out of (memoryquoted 12 lines From: Z Moser [mailto:roachgod69@hotmail.com]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Z Moser [mailto:roachgod69@hotmail.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 4:02 PM
> > > To: sam@forum8.co.jp; idm hyperreal
> > > Subject: RE: [idm] Zeitgeist: Addendum
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes. Thiis was my main problem with the movie as well. There is a good
> > > explanation of why things are the way they are and how they could be.quoted 2 lines is very little info on how to get from here to there. Is this the only
> > > is very little info on how to get from here to there. Is this the only
> > > reason you think it sucked badly? Do you have any suggestion, or knowquoted 1 line movie/media that gives information on how to go about moving things
> > > movie/media that gives information on how to go about moving thingsquoted 1 line transitional period? This is what my main interest of study is right
> > > transitional period? This is what my main interest of study is rightquoted 11 lines zaq
> > >
> > > zaq
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > From: sam@forum8.co.jp
> > > > To: idm@hyperreal.org
> > > > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:34:20 +0900
> > > > Subject: RE: [idm] Zeitgeist: Addendum
> > > >
> > > > I thought the movie sucked pretty badly, just quietly. It had somequoted 1 line the section about the economics of our situation was somewhat
> > > > the section about the economics of our situation was somewhatquoted 1 line however, there was no detail about the path to the utopian dream at
> > > > however, there was no detail about the path to the utopian dream atquoted 9 lines -----Original Message-----
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Z Moser [mailto:roachgod69@hotmail.com]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 12:20 PM
> > > > To: rick@glowdot.com; idm hyperreal
> > > > Subject: RE: [idm] Zeitgeist: Addendum
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Oh. I get it. Its not that it's because it isn't IDM. Its becausequoted 12 lines bias. In that case I will ignore you.
> > > > bias. In that case I will ignore you.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for being clear,
> > > > zaq
> > > >
> > > > > Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:59:18 -0800
> > > > > From: rick@glowdot.com
> > > > > To: idm@hyperreal.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [idm] Zeitgeist: Addendum
> > > > >
> > > > > Charles Goodwin wrote:
> > > > > > Ya know, I never quite understood why people get so upset everyquoted 1 line anyone posts anything that is not directly related to IDM, the same
> > > > anyone posts anything that is not directly related to IDM, the samequoted 3 lines used to happen on the Tech-house list and now its dead.
> > > > used to happen on the Tech-house list and now its dead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Because this is the IDM list not the FW: FW: RE: RE: RE: FW: RE:quoted 1 line ZEITGIEST MIND BLOWN MUST SEE BU$$SH = HITLER CONSPIRACY list,
> > > > > ZEITGIEST MIND BLOWN MUST SEE BU$$SH = HITLER CONSPIRACY list,