The markets' already supposed to be doing just that you describe in your science method. Buyers & producers are already well aware of the many factors you stated in THE METHOD you seem the really on...
@erasmusso Sure there is, it is just based on natural resources instead of gold or a fiat currency. Either way you still have a give-and-take which is the essence of trade.
@IdeasSponge You said that any system based on "trade" will result in greed and corruption and I couldn't agree more, but I suspect we're not talking about the same thing... the Venus Project I'm talking about has no trade or barter of any kind - thevenusproject(dot)com. This VP has no give-and-take, instead there's "take it-use it-return it" just like a library and there's no private property. This system is also called a Resource-Sharing Economy.
Whether or not there is a clear point between consciousness and unconsciousness is completely irrelevant for this argument. In science we construct theories and test them based on the best knowledge currently available. Newton didn't have to understand the exact nature of the higgs boson in order to construct theories about gravity.
@isakoqv Yes, because gravity is empirical. It's observable effects are empirical. Right and wrong of course is not empirical. I mean... how could it be if there is definitive line of where you can begin to applies the so-called laws of morality that might exist?
@enticed2zeitgeist You seem to continually confuse the matter of whether or not there can be such a thing as a scientific discourse regarding morality and how this discourse would look and what it could answer. Like I explained the point of science is to construct theories and subject them to empirical testing. Whether or not we can have clear answers to everything is completely irrelevant.
@isakoqv "The well-being of conscious creatures is also observable and measurable, much like health". I agree, but doesn't that require a subjective influence? For you and could easily find differences in what we agree is healthy. How do you concretely nail down what is actually healthy and good versus what is bad? If we going to say that Morality as a Science can't empirically define good versus bad then why call it Science?
@enticed2zeitgeist Yes, now we're getting somewhere. I already pointed out that there is a science called medicine concerned with the concept of health. There is no clear definition of health (although wikipedia have some that are commonly agreed upon) but it is clearly possible to be more or less healthy, and the purpose of medicine is to examine the details of this.
@isakoqv I get that there is a Science that deals with Health called Medicine but where is the empirical evidence that says that Health Science is good? I get that 'most' people would agree that being healthy (whatever it is) makes them feel good but that's a far cry from being able to say Scientifically that keeping someone or something Healthy is good. Good for who? Good for them? Good for everyone? Good for the planet? Good for animals? It's all subjective.
@enticed2zeitgeist In precisely the same manner, science can examine things like the nature of consciousness, the possible levels of well-being and how actions affect well-being. To provide a silly example, if we can prove that pain is generally detrimental to well-being, and that neurotoxin causes pain, we could deduce that injecting every living human being with neurotoxin would be objectively wrong.
@isakoqv No you cannot deduce that administering neurotoxin would be objectively wrong for it might actually create something good. Take meteor impacts. What can Science say about that? It will give you all the ballistics and chemical reactions, but does say that it's good or bad. Well bad for the dinosaurs, good for us. Do you know what I'm getting at. Presupposing that something is good simply because we deem it to be doesn't mean anything other than exactly that unlike gravity, it's real.
I agree, as most people would that there is some kind of obvious good and bad things that we do and don't do. I get the logic behind a resource based economy, peace, unity and all those other great concepts and ideas. I'm not trying to debate that they aren't wonderful ideas. I'm just in understanding that it has nothing to do with Scientifically derived morals. It's from love, and compassion. It's from being raised in a loving family and realizing that many others don't get to experience that.
@enticed2zeitgeist I think the difference we keep coming back to is that I believe "good" and "bad" are only definitions created by us. You seem to believe them to be some sort of invisible universal laws that can't be measured or determined. I think that is a superstitious belief. The discussion can't really go anywhere beyond that point because as soon as you accept any other part of my argument you keep going back to that critical difference in opinion. Thank you for the discussion!
@isakoqv "You seem to believe them to be some sort of invisible universal laws that can't be measured or determined." Aye, it would "seem" that way, but it's not. We haven't actually discussed what I really think yet, more so it's just been me questioning how one uses the Scientific method to equate empirical truths about good and bad, which I feel you and Sam Harris fail to do so and not surprising to me, very few other Scientists agree with him.
@isakoqv It could be that my background in life and experiences make it difficult for me to understand where you are coming from, but my experiences in life tell me that when something is a Scientific truth it doesn't matter to me what my background is, the proof is in the pudding so to speak. You don't have to tell me to trust you with the laws of acceleration, I can witness them and attest their reality myself, unlike what we are discussing right now which appears purely subjective.
@isakoqv With that said, it's not that I believe Morality is an invisible deity that is impossible to measure, I've never once actually said that. I just don't believe Morality can be measure with a ruler or absolutes. I think Morality in many ways is a lot like art and it's difficult to discuss and assess through mere words, the same way we might enjoy music, or theater or a beautiful sunset, morality is something deeper than just a description and an equation.
@isakoqv At any rate. I have decided it's imperative for me to read Sam Harris' book. I have a friend who has it and I will try to get a hold it. I also thank you for the discussion and in the end it doesn't really matter to me where someone draws their morals from, just as long as they have them and that they are willing to discuss/share and possibly upgrade them I think we're all gonna be ok.
@enticed2zeitgeist I think of love not as the basis of morality but rather a magificent tool - perhaps even better than reason - to determine what is moral. The purest definition of love that I've come across is "to see yourself in another", in essence to place as much value in their well-being as your own. The more you love, the harder it becomes to make immoral decisions.
Yes I support TZM, not quite sure about TVP but it seems to be a good initative.
@enticed2zeitgeist Even if you decide not to get the book I really think you should check out the article Harris' posted in the Huffington post as a response to his critics. He adressed many of your concerns in, at least according to me, a satisfactory manner. I can't provide a link because Youtube dislikes them, but it shouldn't be hard to find with a quick search.
@isakoqv I shall check that out man. Thank you for sharing. Something interesting for me to note is that I have a friend named George who deeply relates to Harris' teachings and concepts and he completely refutes the idea of equality and The Zeitgeist Movement altogether claiming there is no evidence to show that it is a moral direction. It would be great to see you two debate concepts together.
The big difference in a Technocracy we allow computers to vote on many things for us. It is humanities ultimate fear of computer AI taking over that will cause this one to fail. TZM/VP addresses this problem by allowing a true democracy to form, wherein people with the know-how vote on what they know about using a central database, ultimately shared by all. A technocracy will fail simply because the ruling elite will still try to make 1+1=3 and insist that it can via legislative process.
Nice vid! I like the 'wtf are you talking about?' :D great job explaining the scientific method. Great reasoning explained well! Keep doing what you're doing, honey!
Ah. I'm confused. And I've been with the Z Movement since the beginning. How will technicians/scientists making decisions not lead to elitism? Or will everyone have access to every single bit of data on their computers? Both sound contrary to what you stated in your video. Will their be supercomputers that people can 'plug into' for information? Or will scientists be purely making decisions without any oversight from the public?
How can you say this system is better then the other one if one of them has never been implemented? This is enormous assumption. I am not your enemy but combining facts with enormous assumptions is misleading for the people watching it.
If you want to make your system alive you need to do much better.
what about freedom? you look after your self, you're responsible to yourself. Why does the government have to look after anyone(noting at the expense of taxing everyone)? The way I see it, the government should be no more than a neighborhood association. If you want to help society, you join the association and pay membership fees(not recieve a salary). if you want money, you hold fundraisers, not extort(tax) money from people
I consider myself part of TZM. I actually used to run the chapter for my city.
But I gotta say it's kind of strange that the narrator quotes someone saying that Science doesn't tell you how to run a society and then confirms it immediately after by saying that you need a basic set of values first, which has nothing to do with Science. Values are never derived from Science because they are immeasurable in a morally neutral universe. Science does not measure the non-rational, non-measurable.
@enticed2zeitgeist I disagree man, I think that empathic behaviour and hence the empathic values encouraged by TVP, can be derived via the scientific method.
If we accept that, we as human beings, as all other life forms, would prefer to live a life without suffering, it becomes self evident that positive empathic behaviour towards your fellow man is to improve your own quality of life.
And also that, as we completely depend on our environment for our survival, then we must take care of that too
@brucegalliver " I think that empathic behaviour and hence the empathic values encouraged by TVP, can be derived via the scientific method."
I think you are wrong, but the best part about Science is it doesn't matter how you feel about it, it's about provable repeatable experiments, that's how we come to understand Scientific laws that govern the Universe.
In order for Morality to be considered a Science it must follow the rules of Science, which means it must be objective. Continued.
@brucegalliver While I agree that TVP is pretty much a no-brainer (it's obvious we should try it out) I don't feel for a second that my opinion of it has anything to do with Science. I was raised a specific way by my mother, taught to love and care for one another and to appreciate and respect happiness in all life.
The problems with Morality as a Science is that you have to express laws and equations with out saying how it makes someone feel, for as soon as someone "feels" it's not objective.
@brucegalliver Furthermore, trying to state Moral rules via the Scientific method but with out actually using mathematical equations just turns it back into something that already exists "Ethics" which I believe is a branch of Philosophy.
To be honest, I see most people who tout the Morality as a Science mentality are usually Atheist extremists who simply have a hate on for anything religiously modern. The main reason being very few Scientists even think it's plausible.
@enticed2zeitgeist science does measure things of that nature. Science measures things both quantitative and qualitative, especially in the life sciences. I'm a undergrad medical researcher and I personally hate the qualitative assays mainly because a lot of them are so subjective, ie Morphology
@Galldune I think you might be confused. How does Science equate whether or not something is empirically moral. I'm not referring to human wellness, but morality or a sense of truthful right and wrong. Seeing how Science cannot exist with out the observer how can any moral finding of Scientific research be considered to be "objective"?
Does the Quantum phenomena not adequately prove that the observer and the observed are connected intimately? Ergo, I don't see how Science can achieve this.
@enticed2zeitgeist I'll say it again because it seems you've missed the point. Not all things are objective (quantitative) somethings in science are very very subjective(qualitative).Its a fallacy to say that scientific methods could not be used for moral concerns.Science is not a purely objective framework.And I don't understand why you would bring up quantum theory, its the change of rules on how the physical world works an atomic level. Which has no relevance to the topic.
@Galldune Can you provide some examples of Science that is still considered Scientific fact that isn't objective? I'm not berating you, I'm actually asking you. My understanding of Science is that it can't be considered Science unless multiple people perform that exact same experiments and find the exact same results. Please educate me if you know otherwise.
I brought up Quantum theory because I understand it's current the highest point in understanding how the observer affects the observed.
@enticed2zeitgeist I've given you examples, again in my field of study the life sciences...assays like the ELISA are subjective..ABO testing is subjective.and many other tests/assays....they are qualitative(subjective) not quantitative(objective)..when a person does a manual differential, morphological changes like anisocytosis, can be reported differently by different people making it subjective(qualitative). One person's marked change is another persons moderate, etc
@Galldune So how is that considered to be Science then? If we both perform experiments to validate gravity we'll both find the same results. How is it possible that we can consider subjective results to be Scientific? Doesn't that completely refute the whole idea of repeatable experiments?
@Galldune I think perhaps I'm confusing the words subjective with "how a person feels". I can see how if you perform a test on someones blood type the results will be different for each patient. In that sense I can see how it's subjective, but the experiments to test which blood type you are have been objectively proven to be empirical correct?
@enticed2zeitgeist ABO testing has been proven to work...but its subjective because its up to the MLS to visually determine the cut off....and then make a value judgement on the quality of agglutination. example...I'm O+ but I'm very close to being O- due to antibody interaction. Same goes for ELISA its up to the MLS to determine the cut off visually and then make a value judgement on the quality of color change. With morphological changes its a judgement call based on training and experience.
@Galldune I can accept that. However I can't see how that is related to testing the non-measurable which was my original comment. How can science measure morals?
@enticed2zeitgeist it doesn't need to measure morals, just need to establish a framework..and thats what I was trying to get at....not all things in science need to be or are measured..somethings are just frameworks and you apply new theories using the observational data...Like you don't want to be killed..so we can assume that most people would see killing of an innocent as wrong..so you make a law saying killing is wrong..science can make logical frameworks..
@Galldune I researched Sam Harris. I can't take him seriously. I understand what angle you are coming from now. You aren't referring to Morality as a Science but simply Human Wellness. I totally agree that Science has a lot to do with human wellness. I'm referring to Morality though. Something which extends beyond human enjoyment and well being.
@enticed2zeitgeist Harris talks about the well-being of "conscious creatures", not merely humans. If you believe there is anything that extends beyond the well-being of all conscious creatures that matters in any way, I'm simply baffled.
@isakoqv If he speaks about the well-being of all conscious creatures he still isn't referring to morality which is the dealing of right and wrong which does extend beyond conscious life, unless of course you consider all forms of life to be conscious. It's a challenging thing to discuss as it becomes difficult to pin point when exactly life becomes conscious. When exactly do we as human beings say something is worthy of being considered as conscious and when it is not. It's a tough question.
@enticed2zeitgeist There is no such thing as right and wrong beyond that which affects som form of consciousness. That kind of morality is a superstitious belief. If it doesn't affect anyone, anywhere, at any time, it's simply irrelevant. How and what point consciousness forms is indeed a tough and fascinating question, but it has nothing to do with that very simple fact.
@isakoqv "There is no such thing as right and wrong beyond that which affects som form of consciousness", does that mean right there that Science cannot touch morality then? If it can't be tested, understood, witnessed with out personal subjectivity then how can any empirical truths be derived using the Scientific method on values?
I'm not talking about what is best for humanity, I get that Science can test a lot using surveys and things of that nature.
@enticed2zeitgeist Science can absolutely touch morality, just not the imaginary morality you believe in. Much like we cannot conduct experiments on elves or measure the velocity of Santa's sled.
@isakoqv And here I was thinking this whole time we were going to have a respectful discussion. Do you have actually want to discuss information? If so, please leave out accusations, insults and sarcasm, it has no purpose in civil discussion.
"If it can't be tested, understood, witnessed with out personal subjectivity then how can any empirical truths be derived using the Scientific method on values?" All you have to do is let me know if this is valid or not. If it's not, then tell me why.
@enticed2zeitgeist I'm sorry I'm really not trying to be disrespectful, I'm just trying to explain my position. It is my understanding that you believe in a morality that cannot be "tested, understood, witnessed with out personal subjectivity" and what I'm trying to explain is that that type of morality is completely fictitious. If there is no indication of its existance then why do you believe it exists? The morality I'm talking about is simply a concept to describe how actions affect entities.
@isakoqv "If there is no indication of its existance then why do you believe it exists?" I guess it all depends on what you consider an "indication". Interesting chatting with you. I believe I'm starting to understand more and more the kind of people that follow Sam Harris' ideas.
I try to keep in mind before something can exist, someone believes it can exist first. Many major inventions (or discoveries depending on how you look at it) came about despite major opposition, like airplanes.
@enticed2zeitgeist Thanks for the discussion! Let me clarify though; I'm not saying that personal feelings or opinions aren't important, those are all part of the equation. I'm just saying that something is only objectively right or wrong if it has some effect on conscious creatures. What consciosness is, what kind of well-being is possible or how to weigh one entity's well-being against another's are still immensily tough question. I'm only saying that we can discuss them scientifically.
@isakoqv Yes, I totally understand that. What I'm getting at is that it's very difficult to measure something using physical measurements if it is not physical which I would say is where morality resides, I think Philosophers would say something similar. Although you might think that if something is not physical it can be dismissed as simply imaginary (like the tooth fairy) I would have to ask you do you think "love" is real? What about "hope"? The love for children and family? Are those real?
@enticed2zeitgeist Then our view of morality differs. "Physical" is a weird word to use because I believe in plenty of things that aren't physical, but if something has no observable effect on the universe whatsoever there is no reason for me to believe in it. When it comes to "love" and "hope" those are vague words with multiple definitons. I can't say if I believe in love or not if you don't first specify what that means for you, e.g. the feeling that someone is immensily valuable to you.
@isakoqv " 'Physical' is a weird word to use because I believe in plenty of things that aren't physical". Give me an example of something you believe in that isn't physical. I agree that love is a strange word to define, but the point I was trying to get across in is that there is plenty of things that are very real to humans that cannot be scientifically quantified, such as love, hope, adoration, significance, gratitude etc which is why it's strange to me to view morality in the physical world
@enticed2zeitgeist All those words are examples of concepts; words we have invented to describe a myriad of emotions and functionalities. "Health" is an example of a concept that is pretty vague but has something to do with not vomiting all the time. There is no clear definition of health, and it is not a physical "thing", but there are ways to be more or less healthy and the science dealing with that is called medicine.
@enticed2zeitgeist In this way, health is just a concept and although we can't define it perfectly we are pretty much in agreement about what it means. You are free to believe that it is healthy to vomit all the time, or that stones can be healthy, but the rest of us will just think you have a very weird definition of health.
@enticed2zeitgeist Similarly, the only way the concept of morality can be relevant is if it has something to do with the well-being of conscious creatures. Morality isn't a physical force but something we use to describe physical phenomena. If you believe there is some "other" morality that is real but has no effect on the physical universe whatsoever, then I think that's about as reasonable as believing in elves.
@isakoqv I'm not in disagreement about morality having to affect conscious life, I'm not debating from a position that believes otherwise which is what I meant when I said "it depends on where you draw the line of where consciousness is and isn't.
If it's true that there isn't a "clear empirical" division where we can say something is conscious and when something isn't how can we confidently say we are making moral decisions based upon truth rather than just our feelings and opinions.
@isakoqv This is where the whole Morality as a Science concept breaks down. It doesn't matter how I feel about gravity, empirically it exists, whether or not I speak English or I'm a blade of grass. It exists with out my opinion. But the concept of morality is something that requires subjective influence right?
@enticed2zeitgeist The concept of gravity describes how bodies of mass attract; If there was no such thing as mass, there would be no such thing as gravity. Similarly, the concept of morality describes how actions affect the well-being of conscious creatures. If there was no such thing as conscious creatures, there would be no such thing as morality. In that way you are correct in saying the concept requires subjectivity (something that can experience suffering or well-being)
@isakoqv Precisely. So how can we say that it's possible to derive Moral rights and wrongs with any kind of precision (like the same way we can observe and test the rules of gravity) through the Scientific method? I'm actually curious what kind of formulas and experiments would achieve such a thing. To my knowledge it's simply not possible as Science measures the objective world.
@enticed2zeitgeist The well-being of conscious creatures is also observable and measurable, much like health. An action that moves us closer to the worst possible misery for everyone is defined as "wrong", and an action that moves us away from that is defined as "right". This isn't any more of a stretch than saying that moving away from the earth takes you "up" and going towards it moves you "down".
Good video! Over the past few months I've become increasingly disillusioned with both capitalism and the democratic voting system. Once I looked into it, I found out about the idea of a 'resource based' economy and I loved it! Your video can help people understand there can be another way besides the bureaucratic, confused and corrupt system we have now.
(continue) The world can lower its quantities of finite resources and still upgrade its production, creating value, Hurray for technology, recycling, and renewable energies.
I recommend you to stay tunned to a new tech city under construction in Portugal. The purpose is to create the world's most advanced and sustaibable city. Another step for a Venus Project 2.0.
thank you Federico for clearing up some grey areas between a resourced based economy & a technocracy. By keeping complete transparency of all of the data used to draw conclusion open for anyone to scrutinise &making available any form of education to anyone... this makes a ruling intellectual elite difficult if not impossible to maintain.
Just to complete my comment, it's like Uncle Peter used to say: «With great power comes great responsability». So, education is really the key. And the educational system should reestructure its programs and governments should even spend more than 7% GDP in education (EU recomendation).
Another thing. Capitalism doesn't need infinite resources to get infinite economic growth. Economic growth means elevating value and you can do it with quantity and quality.
I liked the moral of the video: better education leads to better democracy that leads to development, etc.
But I sould point out, per example, that economics is a science. But in a world where most people are quite ignorant, politics is a tricky thing to do. Economists/politicians are not dealing with mice, but with societies...composed by heterogeneous groups, emotional, with their own agendas and lacking perspective (gained with good education).
@newb2youtube Remember, this organization is old and it's principles points to a manifesto written almost a decade ago. Society at large has changed dramaticly since then, and the principles needs to be regulated and changed accordingly to todays situation.
@newb2youtube In the Technocracy Study Course it says "income" on page 236, and it clearly explains the term. I never said it was a price system. It also advocates a class labour-system, excluding people under or over a certain age to participate in labour and also at the same time focuses on full employment. Even more differences, but that is not importaint. What about seeing RBE as a modernized Technocracy?
@SaneJohn Well, "income" can be a very differing word. Consuming power would probably be best suited.
"Remember, this organization is old and it's principles points to a manifesto written almost a decade ago. Society at large has changed dramaticly since then, and the principles needs to be regulated and changed accordingly to todays situation."
Wrong, the science hasn't changed, laws of physics haven't changed either. The ideas of energy accounting and organization can easily be done today.
I don't know what you are referring to when you say "focuses on full employment" as man hours are specifically pointed out as pointless in function of industry. Everybody gets equal consuming power from age 25 and until death as a right of citizenship. Younger people could receive allowances but the main idea is very sensible and required to operate and measure a balance load operation. The organizational chart is based on what all organizations use that are successful. Have you read the TSC?
@newb2yutube holy shit man,you've spammed virtually every fucking video about this subject. congratulations
.Any system of government in which the few control the many, regardless of their qualifications or intentions, is just another form of tyranny,only desperate people are sucked into your cult,they need a reason to validate their own pitiful existence....BTW, your revolution will always be a mere fantasy :)
@hayden50 It's pitiful that you must find youtube videos to educate yourself on a particular subject, especially this shitty one created by a Zeitgeist member. Of course, I should expect this from a brainwashed libertarian. I forgot that is how you got "educated" LOL. "Any system of government in which the few control the many" So you're saying all governments are tyranny? Again, you are swallowed by a cult-like ideology. Learn you use critical thinking skills and STOP DRINKING THE KOOLAID!
talking with eachother, not to eachother? Do not attack and harass eachother, please. Compare and exchange ideas, listen and try to understand eachother. Democrats, republicans, technocrats, zeitgeisters... In the end we're all humans, with the same basic needs according to the laws of nature. Let us all together start to move humanity away from insanity.
Technocracy operates with income and expenditure, RBE does not. Besides that, the two concepts are pretty much alike. Todays technology and automation in industry can liberate mankind from the wage slavery. Back in the 30's, this was not the case. What about joining forces and strive together for the better management of the earths rescources? See the similarities and the positives in different systems and approaches and bridge the differences by discussion, understanding and talking with eacho
@SaneJohn Sorry, but you are misinformed on the topic of Technocracy. There is no income or expenditure because it measures production costs on the basis of the degradation of energy quality. Meaning it's already "spent". It is not a money, debt, debit, or credit system(i.e. price/monetary system) It operates with a balance load concept of production and consumption, hence, the Monad symbol. Please read the Technocracy Study Course and associated essay information for further understanding.
@SaneJohn We propose equal consumption rights in terms of available "energy units" consumable among the population which changes with demand and available resources. As for the differences, you are also forgetting the organization of the government(i.e. People with specialized knowledge working together to make a functioning government). That aspect of the design is very important for communication and of course functional governance.
The ideas of Tech Inc and TZM are quite compatible. We cannot allow ignorance and fear of those with specialized knowledge to overwhelm our willingness to seek the answers for ourselves; intellectual coddling (holding on to irrelevant, useless beliefs) and lack of initiative are inexcusable in the modern information age.
Technocracy, as originated by Technocracy, Inc., would exist exclusively to serve the public good. The elimination of special interests (i.e., politics) in decision making processes is essential to the RBE design discussed by both Tech, Inc. and TZM. Today, technical experts are usually serving private interests (corporations) and have an incentive to go against the public good. Tech, Inc, however, proposes equal consumption rights that cannot be abridged or arbitrarily modified.
Technocracy, as originated by Technocracy, Inc., would solely serve the public good. The elimination of special interests (i.e., politics) from decision making processes is essential to their design and to RBE as it is discussed within TZM. Consumption rights cannot be modified by any decree or decision; the biggest "special interest" would be the drive to be remembered for progress, which requires there to be a future and hence, sustainability. The ideas of both movements are quite compatible
Great Video Federico! You should check out a project that attempts to create a framework of applying the scientific to social direction, google 'Zemerge' - its a computing project of applying genetic algorithms to social simulations in order to help us derive optimal evidence based social decisions. Cheers!
I support your attempt to educate and inform us about the scientific method and basic critical thinking skills. Resource management and sound reasoning CAN come together in our lifetime and I believe the paradigm will shift to support such evolution. Brilliantly simple approach. Thank you!! Namaste
People have successfully made me not want to post anything on TZM or TVP videos by just the outrageous attacking, backward logic, and personal beliefs that cant be let go, ___(Fill blank with other fear tactics). I dont think just logic is going to convince people, because,as you said, we live in an ignorant society, and its plainly easy to see everywhere you go, even online. I think were going to need to take a bigger step backward before we make the big leap forward.
@TOTALBLACKMETAL Some of it is well deserved on the other hand you do get crazies like Ayn Randroids, Conspiracy nut jobs etc. that can't tell the difference between critically thinking and believing in clap trap. HOWEVER, you brought that on yourselves as a movement by the crazy BULL you people made during your first movie and budding "movement". Also, your movement isn't really anything substantial in terms of science. You also introduce MANY moralist philosophies which ISN'T science...
@newb2yutube You completely left out a major factor: Behavior.
How is behavior developed?
Do research on this subject. A lot of research; not from just a few sources. Connect this research with the way our society works. Connect it with science and technology. Think critically about all the factors and how they interact. Simply 'knowing' numbers doesn't have much relevance; technology is one factor among many, and those factors are not 'independent' of each other.
@newb2yutube you're conflating the movies with the movement. The movement did not make the films. Peter Joseph did. He has gone on record to state that the first film was as much a personal rant as anything, which he didn't expect to amount to anything. TZM didn't exist until after the 2nd film 'Zeitgeist: Addendum'. The movement is a communications project, hoping to pave the way for humans to apply the scientific method for social concerns and present ideas to create discussion; nothing more.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@mysterywhiteboy72 No, you can't wash something like that with very poor excuses. Josephs purpose was to create a movement or "Zeitgeist" in his first film. A personal rant?...Please. So, that excuse doesn't really fly. I realize they've moved on, somewhat from that baggage. However, It's still there and is a major part of your critics.
@mysterywhiteboy72 I think it's great that they are pushing for the "application of the scientific method for social concerns". That's exactly word for word what technocracy has proposed since 1918. That was the reason they used the word Technocracy. As for presenting ideas and creating discussions, I very much doubt that. Most of the people in the group have no clue about where those ideas first originated. When trying to educate in the forums any discussion on technocracy is shut down.
@mysterywhiteboy72 So, it seems most people in control of the group are only interested in "their" ideas. This is why I think this video is a poor portrayal of what technocracy is. Ignorance breeds more ignorance, what's so hard about learning about an interesting group that preceded TVP or TZM? It was no doubt part of it's influence. Fresco himself was a member. It's just sad and shows the intellectual capacity of Joseph himself who to this day claims to not know much about Technocracy. Sad...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@mysterywhiteboy72 Also, the really sad thing about the whole movement is that every day, they sound more and more like Technocrats. Like, for example, his stating that all our issues are technical in nature. Pretty much what technocrats have been saying since day one i.e. " Governance by science,
social control though the power of technique" or "Production for use, not profit" I think the recent break up from TVP further proves my point. I believe Fresco to be an egoist or scam artist, or both.
@newb2yutube why is it sad? All knowledge is serial, going back as far as the first tool users. Think of knowledge as a piece of string reaching through the ages, with divergent strings. Guy a) uses a flint to crack open a nut, guy b) sees this and attaches flint to a bone with some twine etc etc. This is evident in many areas. Arguably modern pop music wouldn't have been possible without the blues, but after some time it is not necessary to mention the blues as it is a given.
Ciò che dici è giusto...come è giusto quello che si dice in buona parte dei documentari che criticano la società moderna, il problema è che sono sempre e solo buone idee, mai concretizzate.E' ora di decidere come agire difronte ai grandi cambiamenti che stanno avvenendo e di dare istruzioni (motivate) alla gente su come agire.L'informazione c'è, ora manca solo l'azione concreta...Tra l'altro mi puzza sta storia dei Bitcoin...cosa c'entrano con Zeitgeist?E' solo un sistema monetario alternativo..
Technocracy has always been specific about how they originated their ideas. From the works of Willard Gibbs, the father of physical chemistry. The group has also had many notable people who worked on the ideas such as M. King Hubbert, Richard C. Tolman, Charles Steinmetz, Veblen, Scott, etc. Their thesis and designs are just as applicable today as they were then. I suggest you people educate yourselves on an interesting topic instead of criticizing from ignorance. The least you can do is read.
I don't want to argue about this with you guys as you seem blind in your faith toward the movement, peter joseph, fresco or whatever else you choose but these "ideas" have no intellectual cadence but seem to "originate" as derivatives of early works of Technocracy technate design. If you dig deep and follow any ideas or scientific progress history you will see a progression of ideas. That is a fact. So, the question begs what came before TZM ideas? They surely didn't come from thin air...
I would also call TZM or TVP a moralist environmental ideology. You people are definitely not scientific nor provide any historical evidence such as Technocracy has done since the 1920's with Biophysical economics, industrial ecology, ecological economics and more. The criticisms I hear from you people are pathetic. What is wrong with Technocracy?...."It's old and ours is better"...How? Why? "It has an elite which will be corrupted!" Is that supposed to be a scientific conclusion? Sad...just sad
This video is just sad. Way to be truly objective in your analysis of Technocracy. If you are ignorant of a particular subject, then don't criticize it as you have done. Experts are in charge of the technical challenges that face society. Their purpose is to sustain a government of function. This can only work in the economic system is of a non market biophysical economic design. Otherwise known as Energy Accounting. The only thing influencing scientists or experts are facts and data.
excellent video Federico, I think this is the most well made explanation of using science for social concern ever! Thanks so much for this useful tool~
Hello! I think that you've made a great video.. Your explanations about the failures of our current system are very clear and strong.. I'm extending it and hope that you continue exploring more topics for the benefit of all of us. Thanks, dude. Hugs from Brazil. LJ.
@longshotnl Like all systems there will be variations. I'm sure there will be a Capitalist variation of TVP or adaptations thereof before the system fails entirely. To them TVP is an extremist. Eventually extreme conditional problems within that system will lead them to using extreme conditional solutions, likely bordering briefly on the TVP type of solution.
@TronixGuy93 The zeitgeist movement is the communication arm of the venus project and is not some innitiative on itself. The purpose of TZM is to communicate TVP to others. This is not doing a great job at that.
@longshotnl I know what it is. Communicating an idea as good as this one is never easy. All ideas and theories must meet and pass peer review. TZM & TVP aren't reaching the masses because they've been conditioned to believe that money is req'd for existence to persist. Money is the antithesis of TVP. Naturally they're not gonna mix, and there will be some ignorant souls out there willing to fight against it or refuse to speak about it because they don't know whats good for them anymnore.
The Venus Project and Zeit is only dumbed down Technocracy concepts that J.F. stole from the more interesting original group. He contributed nothing but ego and P.J. does not know or care about the history of the group TechInc. The original Technocracy Study Course is the thing to check out. Also the Facebook group Technocracy Revolution is active with information currently.
Looks like your jumping off point is the Zeitgeist movement. That is a pity because it has much baggage... conspiracy nonsense and J. Fresco aspects or morality and ethics.
Fresco has zero to do with Technocracy ideas. Google Technocracy technate... and Technocracy Study Course to learn about the technate design.
Zeitgeist is embarrassing clap trap.
Peter Joseph and Fresco have made a career of ripping off the much more interesting ideas of Howard Scott and M. King Hubbert.
@BlindPlague your a know nothing ripp=off artist of ideas. I asked you before to take the Pederson vids of your site Plague. Mostly you think the laws of physics are outmoded?
You want to consult an economist. Your an idiot if your not educable.
People could apply these principles or at least advocate for these principles at the local level such as school boards, city councils, mayoral elections, etc.... We only need one community to create the model - those beneficial results will naturally spread like wildfire.
@SILLYFROGFART The problem is such a community would be deemed a threat to national security or so isolated by embargo that it would be forced to failure, or be pushed back to the stone age.
Politics is economics carried out by other means. While you assert (correctly) that the current "capitalist" system denoted by Frederico is a Ponzi scheme and not "true capitalism", I have yet to have explained to me how mass concentrations of capital in any system will not lead to the formation of power establishments and the subsequent efforts to preserve them. There are no life-coordinates in a capitalist system, just rational self-interest and a belief in an invisible hand.
1) Technocracy is incorrectly spelled "Technoracy" 1m 47s
2) Manage is spelled "mange" 4m 18s. This seems however to correct itself on Youtube itself, but not in the TZM Global site embedded link.
3) Perpetuate is incorrectly spelled "perpetrating" 5m 28s. You also said "perpetrating", so you might need a re-record. I am of course assuming that you meant to say "perpetuating".
I point these out not to be pedantic but to improve the overall quality of an excellent presentation.
@TronixGuy93 I really, really think he meant self-perpetuating. It makes way more sense than self-perpetrating, a term I've never even heard used in a sentence. What could self-perpetrating even mean? Something that was committed by yourself? Try a use it in a sentence.
@rawseaone Sally self-perpetrated arson on her home. Joe self-perpetrated a crime against himself. Heshe self-perpetrated that act on themself. Works for me. Sentences don't always have to sound correct to be correct.
@rawseaone thanks for the suggestions. Unfortunately YouTube does not allow you to change the video source, so I added annotations to correct the misspelled words. :)
@federicopistono Instead of getting your information solely from wikipedia, I suggest you read the Technocracy Study Course unabridged to get a comprehensive view of Technocracy technate design. I'm sure you'd ask the same of others if they were looking into TVP or TZM. Just a suggestion, cause your information in you video is very inaccurate.
the balanced will soon be tipped and i only hope and pray it is the ecological sustaining of this planet and the increase in our well being which will become the most popular idea when we rebuild ourselves :D
I'm guessing this is a psuedo-response to the guys at BitCoin forums. They were really rowdy over there, no doubt about it--it gave me a headache reading through all that rhetoric. Just try to stay focused Frederico!
Well done mate, this video really approaches the scientific method! Keep it up, but try not to be offensive next time. People tend to shut you out from their minds when you say "no, you are wrong" or being ironic.
Capitalism is often conflated with politics despite it being an economic system. It does not need to grow in size to sustain itself. In fact, capitalism naturally observes creative destruction - reduction of waste. What you described in the video was a Ponzi scheme, not capitalism.
The world needs more people like you Federico. Keep up the great work.
hi2u121221 1 week ago
responded to your video watch?v=U3J9JCLnN_o&feature=youtu.be
g0at 1 week ago
The markets' already supposed to be doing just that you describe in your science method. Buyers & producers are already well aware of the many factors you stated in THE METHOD you seem the really on...
veejaytsunamix 2 weeks ago
there's a lot of info about this shit, but how will the general population understand ? they know only how to drink beer and eat meat!
BenderRaph 2 weeks ago
The Venus Project is doomed to fail. Any system based on "trade" will result in greed and corruption.
IdeasSponge 2 weeks ago
@IdeasSponge So why is the VP doomed to fail? There's no trade in the VP...
erasmusso 2 weeks ago
@erasmusso Sure there is, it is just based on natural resources instead of gold or a fiat currency. Either way you still have a give-and-take which is the essence of trade.
IdeasSponge 1 week ago
@IdeasSponge You said that any system based on "trade" will result in greed and corruption and I couldn't agree more, but I suspect we're not talking about the same thing... the Venus Project I'm talking about has no trade or barter of any kind - thevenusproject(dot)com. This VP has no give-and-take, instead there's "take it-use it-return it" just like a library and there's no private property. This system is also called a Resource-Sharing Economy.
erasmusso 1 week ago
Amazing. I have actually been building a system that supports this ( 7:25 )
IdeasSponge 2 weeks ago
oh crap, i forgot to tebow
fothinator 1 month ago
Whether or not there is a clear point between consciousness and unconsciousness is completely irrelevant for this argument. In science we construct theories and test them based on the best knowledge currently available. Newton didn't have to understand the exact nature of the higgs boson in order to construct theories about gravity.
isakoqv 2 months ago
@isakoqv Yes, because gravity is empirical. It's observable effects are empirical. Right and wrong of course is not empirical. I mean... how could it be if there is definitive line of where you can begin to applies the so-called laws of morality that might exist?
enticed2zeitgeist 2 months ago
@enticed2zeitgeist That should say *isn't* a definitive line.
enticed2zeitgeist 2 months ago
@enticed2zeitgeist You seem to continually confuse the matter of whether or not there can be such a thing as a scientific discourse regarding morality and how this discourse would look and what it could answer. Like I explained the point of science is to construct theories and subject them to empirical testing. Whether or not we can have clear answers to everything is completely irrelevant.
isakoqv 2 months ago
@isakoqv "The well-being of conscious creatures is also observable and measurable, much like health". I agree, but doesn't that require a subjective influence? For you and could easily find differences in what we agree is healthy. How do you concretely nail down what is actually healthy and good versus what is bad? If we going to say that Morality as a Science can't empirically define good versus bad then why call it Science?
enticed2zeitgeist 2 months ago
@enticed2zeitgeist Yes, now we're getting somewhere. I already pointed out that there is a science called medicine concerned with the concept of health. There is no clear definition of health (although wikipedia have some that are commonly agreed upon) but it is clearly possible to be more or less healthy, and the purpose of medicine is to examine the details of this.
isakoqv 2 months ago
@isakoqv I get that there is a Science that deals with Health called Medicine but where is the empirical evidence that says that Health Science is good? I get that 'most' people would agree that being healthy (whatever it is) makes them feel good but that's a far cry from being able to say Scientifically that keeping someone or something Healthy is good. Good for who? Good for them? Good for everyone? Good for the planet? Good for animals? It's all subjective.
enticed2zeitgeist 2 months ago
@enticed2zeitgeist In precisely the same manner, science can examine things like the nature of consciousness, the possible levels of well-being and how actions affect well-being. To provide a silly example, if we can prove that pain is generally detrimental to well-being, and that neurotoxin causes pain, we could deduce that injecting every living human being with neurotoxin would be objectively wrong.
isakoqv 2 months ago
@isakoqv No you cannot deduce that administering neurotoxin would be objectively wrong for it might actually create something good. Take meteor impacts. What can Science say about that? It will give you all the ballistics and chemical reactions, but does say that it's good or bad. Well bad for the dinosaurs, good for us. Do you know what I'm getting at. Presupposing that something is good simply because we deem it to be doesn't mean anything other than exactly that unlike gravity, it's real.
enticed2zeitgeist 2 months ago
I agree, as most people would that there is some kind of obvious good and bad things that we do and don't do. I get the logic behind a resource based economy, peace, unity and all those other great concepts and ideas. I'm not trying to debate that they aren't wonderful ideas. I'm just in understanding that it has nothing to do with Scientifically derived morals. It's from love, and compassion. It's from being raised in a loving family and realizing that many others don't get to experience that.
enticed2zeitgeist 2 months ago
@enticed2zeitgeist I think the difference we keep coming back to is that I believe "good" and "bad" are only definitions created by us. You seem to believe them to be some sort of invisible universal laws that can't be measured or determined. I think that is a superstitious belief. The discussion can't really go anywhere beyond that point because as soon as you accept any other part of my argument you keep going back to that critical difference in opinion. Thank you for the discussion!
isakoqv 2 months ago
@isakoqv "You seem to believe them to be some sort of invisible universal laws that can't be measured or determined." Aye, it would "seem" that way, but it's not. We haven't actually discussed what I really think yet, more so it's just been me questioning how one uses the Scientific method to equate empirical truths about good and bad, which I feel you and Sam Harris fail to do so and not surprising to me, very few other Scientists agree with him.
enticed2zeitgeist 2 months ago
@isakoqv It could be that my background in life and experiences make it difficult for me to understand where you are coming from, but my experiences in life tell me that when something is a Scientific truth it doesn't matter to me what my background is, the proof is in the pudding so to speak. You don't have to tell me to trust you with the laws of acceleration, I can witness them and attest their reality myself, unlike what we are discussing right now which appears purely subjective.
enticed2zeitgeist 2 months ago
@isakoqv With that said, it's not that I believe Morality is an invisible deity that is impossible to measure, I've never once actually said that. I just don't believe Morality can be measure with a ruler or absolutes. I think Morality in many ways is a lot like art and it's difficult to discuss and assess through mere words, the same way we might enjoy music, or theater or a beautiful sunset, morality is something deeper than just a description and an equation.
enticed2zeitgeist 2 months ago
@isakoqv At any rate. I have decided it's imperative for me to read Sam Harris' book. I have a friend who has it and I will try to get a hold it. I also thank you for the discussion and in the end it doesn't really matter to me where someone draws their morals from, just as long as they have them and that they are willing to discuss/share and possibly upgrade them I think we're all gonna be ok.
Just curious, do you agree or support TZM/TVP?
enticed2zeitgeist 2 months ago
@enticed2zeitgeist I think of love not as the basis of morality but rather a magificent tool - perhaps even better than reason - to determine what is moral. The purest definition of love that I've come across is "to see yourself in another", in essence to place as much value in their well-being as your own. The more you love, the harder it becomes to make immoral decisions.
Yes I support TZM, not quite sure about TVP but it seems to be a good initative.
isakoqv 1 month ago
@enticed2zeitgeist Even if you decide not to get the book I really think you should check out the article Harris' posted in the Huffington post as a response to his critics. He adressed many of your concerns in, at least according to me, a satisfactory manner. I can't provide a link because Youtube dislikes them, but it shouldn't be hard to find with a quick search.
isakoqv 1 month ago
@isakoqv I shall check that out man. Thank you for sharing. Something interesting for me to note is that I have a friend named George who deeply relates to Harris' teachings and concepts and he completely refutes the idea of equality and The Zeitgeist Movement altogether claiming there is no evidence to show that it is a moral direction. It would be great to see you two debate concepts together.
enticed2zeitgeist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@isakoqv "Whether or not we can have clear answers to everything is completely irrelevant." But Science "does" give us clear answers doesn't it?
enticed2zeitgeist 2 months ago
Excellent production...didn't know there were so few members of Congress who had a remote grasp on science in general, explains a lot. :/
mdlittle5466 2 months ago
smug alert
dirkonaut 3 months ago
The big difference in a Technocracy we allow computers to vote on many things for us. It is humanities ultimate fear of computer AI taking over that will cause this one to fail. TZM/VP addresses this problem by allowing a true democracy to form, wherein people with the know-how vote on what they know about using a central database, ultimately shared by all. A technocracy will fail simply because the ruling elite will still try to make 1+1=3 and insist that it can via legislative process.
TronixGuy93 4 months ago
Scientific method: The most accurate process for gathering objective information regarding the physical world, and thus reality.
RBE's stated objective: To achieve a healthy functional society.
Organizations in support: The Zeitgeist Movement, The Venus Project
MyOnlyFarph 4 months ago
very Good thank you for the video!
Chuckytuna1 5 months ago
Very well done!
abemore 5 months ago
Nice vid! I like the 'wtf are you talking about?' :D great job explaining the scientific method. Great reasoning explained well! Keep doing what you're doing, honey!
laurakaumbartner 5 months ago
Ah. I'm confused. And I've been with the Z Movement since the beginning. How will technicians/scientists making decisions not lead to elitism? Or will everyone have access to every single bit of data on their computers? Both sound contrary to what you stated in your video. Will their be supercomputers that people can 'plug into' for information? Or will scientists be purely making decisions without any oversight from the public?
blizteria 5 months ago
How can you say this system is better then the other one if one of them has never been implemented? This is enormous assumption. I am not your enemy but combining facts with enormous assumptions is misleading for the people watching it.
If you want to make your system alive you need to do much better.
adamwitkowski3 5 months ago
what about freedom? you look after your self, you're responsible to yourself. Why does the government have to look after anyone(noting at the expense of taxing everyone)? The way I see it, the government should be no more than a neighborhood association. If you want to help society, you join the association and pay membership fees(not recieve a salary). if you want money, you hold fundraisers, not extort(tax) money from people
Timb0NZ 5 months ago
good shit! keep em comin!
bistnenutte 5 months ago in playlist More videos from federicopistono
I consider myself part of TZM. I actually used to run the chapter for my city.
But I gotta say it's kind of strange that the narrator quotes someone saying that Science doesn't tell you how to run a society and then confirms it immediately after by saying that you need a basic set of values first, which has nothing to do with Science. Values are never derived from Science because they are immeasurable in a morally neutral universe. Science does not measure the non-rational, non-measurable.
enticed2zeitgeist 6 months ago
@enticed2zeitgeist I disagree man, I think that empathic behaviour and hence the empathic values encouraged by TVP, can be derived via the scientific method.
If we accept that, we as human beings, as all other life forms, would prefer to live a life without suffering, it becomes self evident that positive empathic behaviour towards your fellow man is to improve your own quality of life.
And also that, as we completely depend on our environment for our survival, then we must take care of that too
brucegalliver 5 months ago
@brucegalliver " I think that empathic behaviour and hence the empathic values encouraged by TVP, can be derived via the scientific method."
I think you are wrong, but the best part about Science is it doesn't matter how you feel about it, it's about provable repeatable experiments, that's how we come to understand Scientific laws that govern the Universe.
In order for Morality to be considered a Science it must follow the rules of Science, which means it must be objective. Continued.
enticed2zeitgeist 5 months ago
@brucegalliver While I agree that TVP is pretty much a no-brainer (it's obvious we should try it out) I don't feel for a second that my opinion of it has anything to do with Science. I was raised a specific way by my mother, taught to love and care for one another and to appreciate and respect happiness in all life.
The problems with Morality as a Science is that you have to express laws and equations with out saying how it makes someone feel, for as soon as someone "feels" it's not objective.
enticed2zeitgeist 5 months ago
@brucegalliver Furthermore, trying to state Moral rules via the Scientific method but with out actually using mathematical equations just turns it back into something that already exists "Ethics" which I believe is a branch of Philosophy.
To be honest, I see most people who tout the Morality as a Science mentality are usually Atheist extremists who simply have a hate on for anything religiously modern. The main reason being very few Scientists even think it's plausible.
enticed2zeitgeist 5 months ago
@enticed2zeitgeist science does measure things of that nature. Science measures things both quantitative and qualitative, especially in the life sciences. I'm a undergrad medical researcher and I personally hate the qualitative assays mainly because a lot of them are so subjective, ie Morphology
Galldune 2 months ago
@Galldune I think you might be confused. How does Science equate whether or not something is empirically moral. I'm not referring to human wellness, but morality or a sense of truthful right and wrong. Seeing how Science cannot exist with out the observer how can any moral finding of Scientific research be considered to be "objective"?
Does the Quantum phenomena not adequately prove that the observer and the observed are connected intimately? Ergo, I don't see how Science can achieve this.
enticed2zeitgeist 2 months ago
@enticed2zeitgeist I'll say it again because it seems you've missed the point. Not all things are objective (quantitative) somethings in science are very very subjective(qualitative).Its a fallacy to say that scientific methods could not be used for moral concerns.Science is not a purely objective framework.And I don't understand why you would bring up quantum theory, its the change of rules on how the physical world works an atomic level. Which has no relevance to the topic.
Galldune 2 months ago
@Galldune Can you provide some examples of Science that is still considered Scientific fact that isn't objective? I'm not berating you, I'm actually asking you. My understanding of Science is that it can't be considered Science unless multiple people perform that exact same experiments and find the exact same results. Please educate me if you know otherwise.
I brought up Quantum theory because I understand it's current the highest point in understanding how the observer affects the observed.
enticed2zeitgeist 2 months ago
@enticed2zeitgeist I've given you examples, again in my field of study the life sciences...assays like the ELISA are subjective..ABO testing is subjective.and many other tests/assays....they are qualitative(subjective) not quantitative(objective)..when a person does a manual differential, morphological changes like anisocytosis, can be reported differently by different people making it subjective(qualitative). One person's marked change is another persons moderate, etc
Galldune 2 months ago
@Galldune So how is that considered to be Science then? If we both perform experiments to validate gravity we'll both find the same results. How is it possible that we can consider subjective results to be Scientific? Doesn't that completely refute the whole idea of repeatable experiments?
enticed2zeitgeist 2 months ago
@Galldune I think perhaps I'm confusing the words subjective with "how a person feels". I can see how if you perform a test on someones blood type the results will be different for each patient. In that sense I can see how it's subjective, but the experiments to test which blood type you are have been objectively proven to be empirical correct?
Is that what you are referring too?
enticed2zeitgeist 2 months ago
@enticed2zeitgeist ABO testing has been proven to work...but its subjective because its up to the MLS to visually determine the cut off....and then make a value judgement on the quality of agglutination. example...I'm O+ but I'm very close to being O- due to antibody interaction. Same goes for ELISA its up to the MLS to determine the cut off visually and then make a value judgement on the quality of color change. With morphological changes its a judgement call based on training and experience.
Galldune 2 months ago
@Galldune I can accept that. However I can't see how that is related to testing the non-measurable which was my original comment. How can science measure morals?
enticed2zeitgeist 2 months ago
@enticed2zeitgeist it doesn't need to measure morals, just need to establish a framework..and thats what I was trying to get at....not all things in science need to be or are measured..somethings are just frameworks and you apply new theories using the observational data...Like you don't want to be killed..so we can assume that most people would see killing of an innocent as wrong..so you make a law saying killing is wrong..science can make logical frameworks..
Galldune 2 months ago
@Galldune I researched Sam Harris. I can't take him seriously. I understand what angle you are coming from now. You aren't referring to Morality as a Science but simply Human Wellness. I totally agree that Science has a lot to do with human wellness. I'm referring to Morality though. Something which extends beyond human enjoyment and well being.
enticed2zeitgeist 2 months ago
@enticed2zeitgeist Harris talks about the well-being of "conscious creatures", not merely humans. If you believe there is anything that extends beyond the well-being of all conscious creatures that matters in any way, I'm simply baffled.
isakoqv 2 months ago
@isakoqv If he speaks about the well-being of all conscious creatures he still isn't referring to morality which is the dealing of right and wrong which does extend beyond conscious life, unless of course you consider all forms of life to be conscious. It's a challenging thing to discuss as it becomes difficult to pin point when exactly life becomes conscious. When exactly do we as human beings say something is worthy of being considered as conscious and when it is not. It's a tough question.
enticed2zeitgeist 2 months ago
@enticed2zeitgeist There is no such thing as right and wrong beyond that which affects som form of consciousness. That kind of morality is a superstitious belief. If it doesn't affect anyone, anywhere, at any time, it's simply irrelevant. How and what point consciousness forms is indeed a tough and fascinating question, but it has nothing to do with that very simple fact.
isakoqv 2 months ago
@isakoqv "There is no such thing as right and wrong beyond that which affects som form of consciousness", does that mean right there that Science cannot touch morality then? If it can't be tested, understood, witnessed with out personal subjectivity then how can any empirical truths be derived using the Scientific method on values?
I'm not talking about what is best for humanity, I get that Science can test a lot using surveys and things of that nature.
enticed2zeitgeist 2 months ago
@enticed2zeitgeist Science can absolutely touch morality, just not the imaginary morality you believe in. Much like we cannot conduct experiments on elves or measure the velocity of Santa's sled.
isakoqv 2 months ago
@isakoqv And here I was thinking this whole time we were going to have a respectful discussion. Do you have actually want to discuss information? If so, please leave out accusations, insults and sarcasm, it has no purpose in civil discussion.
"If it can't be tested, understood, witnessed with out personal subjectivity then how can any empirical truths be derived using the Scientific method on values?" All you have to do is let me know if this is valid or not. If it's not, then tell me why.
enticed2zeitgeist 2 months ago
@enticed2zeitgeist I'm sorry I'm really not trying to be disrespectful, I'm just trying to explain my position. It is my understanding that you believe in a morality that cannot be "tested, understood, witnessed with out personal subjectivity" and what I'm trying to explain is that that type of morality is completely fictitious. If there is no indication of its existance then why do you believe it exists? The morality I'm talking about is simply a concept to describe how actions affect entities.
isakoqv 2 months ago
@isakoqv "If there is no indication of its existance then why do you believe it exists?" I guess it all depends on what you consider an "indication". Interesting chatting with you. I believe I'm starting to understand more and more the kind of people that follow Sam Harris' ideas.
I try to keep in mind before something can exist, someone believes it can exist first. Many major inventions (or discoveries depending on how you look at it) came about despite major opposition, like airplanes.
enticed2zeitgeist 2 months ago
@isakoqv And apology accepted. Thank you very much for that :) I really appreciate you taking the time to talk with me.
enticed2zeitgeist 2 months ago
@enticed2zeitgeist Thanks for the discussion! Let me clarify though; I'm not saying that personal feelings or opinions aren't important, those are all part of the equation. I'm just saying that something is only objectively right or wrong if it has some effect on conscious creatures. What consciosness is, what kind of well-being is possible or how to weigh one entity's well-being against another's are still immensily tough question. I'm only saying that we can discuss them scientifically.
isakoqv 2 months ago
@isakoqv Yes, I totally understand that. What I'm getting at is that it's very difficult to measure something using physical measurements if it is not physical which I would say is where morality resides, I think Philosophers would say something similar. Although you might think that if something is not physical it can be dismissed as simply imaginary (like the tooth fairy) I would have to ask you do you think "love" is real? What about "hope"? The love for children and family? Are those real?
enticed2zeitgeist 2 months ago
@enticed2zeitgeist Then our view of morality differs. "Physical" is a weird word to use because I believe in plenty of things that aren't physical, but if something has no observable effect on the universe whatsoever there is no reason for me to believe in it. When it comes to "love" and "hope" those are vague words with multiple definitons. I can't say if I believe in love or not if you don't first specify what that means for you, e.g. the feeling that someone is immensily valuable to you.
isakoqv 2 months ago
@isakoqv " 'Physical' is a weird word to use because I believe in plenty of things that aren't physical". Give me an example of something you believe in that isn't physical. I agree that love is a strange word to define, but the point I was trying to get across in is that there is plenty of things that are very real to humans that cannot be scientifically quantified, such as love, hope, adoration, significance, gratitude etc which is why it's strange to me to view morality in the physical world
enticed2zeitgeist 2 months ago
@isakoqv In other words, simply put, right and wrong, good and bad are not physical objects so how can view them through a Scientific Lens?
enticed2zeitgeist 2 months ago
@enticed2zeitgeist All those words are examples of concepts; words we have invented to describe a myriad of emotions and functionalities. "Health" is an example of a concept that is pretty vague but has something to do with not vomiting all the time. There is no clear definition of health, and it is not a physical "thing", but there are ways to be more or less healthy and the science dealing with that is called medicine.
isakoqv 2 months ago
@enticed2zeitgeist In this way, health is just a concept and although we can't define it perfectly we are pretty much in agreement about what it means. You are free to believe that it is healthy to vomit all the time, or that stones can be healthy, but the rest of us will just think you have a very weird definition of health.
isakoqv 2 months ago
@enticed2zeitgeist Similarly, the only way the concept of morality can be relevant is if it has something to do with the well-being of conscious creatures. Morality isn't a physical force but something we use to describe physical phenomena. If you believe there is some "other" morality that is real but has no effect on the physical universe whatsoever, then I think that's about as reasonable as believing in elves.
isakoqv 2 months ago
@isakoqv I'm not in disagreement about morality having to affect conscious life, I'm not debating from a position that believes otherwise which is what I meant when I said "it depends on where you draw the line of where consciousness is and isn't.
If it's true that there isn't a "clear empirical" division where we can say something is conscious and when something isn't how can we confidently say we are making moral decisions based upon truth rather than just our feelings and opinions.
enticed2zeitgeist 2 months ago
@isakoqv This is where the whole Morality as a Science concept breaks down. It doesn't matter how I feel about gravity, empirically it exists, whether or not I speak English or I'm a blade of grass. It exists with out my opinion. But the concept of morality is something that requires subjective influence right?
enticed2zeitgeist 2 months ago
@enticed2zeitgeist The concept of gravity describes how bodies of mass attract; If there was no such thing as mass, there would be no such thing as gravity. Similarly, the concept of morality describes how actions affect the well-being of conscious creatures. If there was no such thing as conscious creatures, there would be no such thing as morality. In that way you are correct in saying the concept requires subjectivity (something that can experience suffering or well-being)
isakoqv 2 months ago
@isakoqv Precisely. So how can we say that it's possible to derive Moral rights and wrongs with any kind of precision (like the same way we can observe and test the rules of gravity) through the Scientific method? I'm actually curious what kind of formulas and experiments would achieve such a thing. To my knowledge it's simply not possible as Science measures the objective world.
Are we going in circles now? lol.
enticed2zeitgeist 2 months ago
@enticed2zeitgeist The well-being of conscious creatures is also observable and measurable, much like health. An action that moves us closer to the worst possible misery for everyone is defined as "wrong", and an action that moves us away from that is defined as "right". This isn't any more of a stretch than saying that moving away from the earth takes you "up" and going towards it moves you "down".
isakoqv 2 months ago
@enticed2zeitgeist look up "Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions" I posted a like but a quick google search will bring it up
Galldune 2 months ago
@Galldune xxx.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html
Galldune 2 months ago
what a pathetic understanding of democracy.
wh333t 6 months ago
Good video! Over the past few months I've become increasingly disillusioned with both capitalism and the democratic voting system. Once I looked into it, I found out about the idea of a 'resource based' economy and I loved it! Your video can help people understand there can be another way besides the bureaucratic, confused and corrupt system we have now.
3barrypaul7 6 months ago 4
(continue) The world can lower its quantities of finite resources and still upgrade its production, creating value, Hurray for technology, recycling, and renewable energies.
I recommend you to stay tunned to a new tech city under construction in Portugal. The purpose is to create the world's most advanced and sustaibable city. Another step for a Venus Project 2.0.
Google "PlanIT" and check it out.
rickpoman 6 months ago
thank you Federico for clearing up some grey areas between a resourced based economy & a technocracy. By keeping complete transparency of all of the data used to draw conclusion open for anyone to scrutinise &making available any form of education to anyone... this makes a ruling intellectual elite difficult if not impossible to maintain.
whiterabit09 6 months ago
Just to complete my comment, it's like Uncle Peter used to say: «With great power comes great responsability». So, education is really the key. And the educational system should reestructure its programs and governments should even spend more than 7% GDP in education (EU recomendation).
Another thing. Capitalism doesn't need infinite resources to get infinite economic growth. Economic growth means elevating value and you can do it with quantity and quality.
rickpoman 6 months ago
I liked the moral of the video: better education leads to better democracy that leads to development, etc.
But I sould point out, per example, that economics is a science. But in a world where most people are quite ignorant, politics is a tricky thing to do. Economists/politicians are not dealing with mice, but with societies...composed by heterogeneous groups, emotional, with their own agendas and lacking perspective (gained with good education).
rickpoman 6 months ago
@newb2youtube Remember, this organization is old and it's principles points to a manifesto written almost a decade ago. Society at large has changed dramaticly since then, and the principles needs to be regulated and changed accordingly to todays situation.
SaneJohn 6 months ago
@newb2youtube In the Technocracy Study Course it says "income" on page 236, and it clearly explains the term. I never said it was a price system. It also advocates a class labour-system, excluding people under or over a certain age to participate in labour and also at the same time focuses on full employment. Even more differences, but that is not importaint. What about seeing RBE as a modernized Technocracy?
SaneJohn 6 months ago
@SaneJohn Well, "income" can be a very differing word. Consuming power would probably be best suited.
"Remember, this organization is old and it's principles points to a manifesto written almost a decade ago. Society at large has changed dramaticly since then, and the principles needs to be regulated and changed accordingly to todays situation."
Wrong, the science hasn't changed, laws of physics haven't changed either. The ideas of energy accounting and organization can easily be done today.
newb2yutube 6 months ago
I don't know what you are referring to when you say "focuses on full employment" as man hours are specifically pointed out as pointless in function of industry. Everybody gets equal consuming power from age 25 and until death as a right of citizenship. Younger people could receive allowances but the main idea is very sensible and required to operate and measure a balance load operation. The organizational chart is based on what all organizations use that are successful. Have you read the TSC?
newb2yutube 6 months ago
@newb2yutube holy shit man,you've spammed virtually every fucking video about this subject. congratulations
.Any system of government in which the few control the many, regardless of their qualifications or intentions, is just another form of tyranny,only desperate people are sucked into your cult,they need a reason to validate their own pitiful existence....BTW, your revolution will always be a mere fantasy :)
hayden50 5 months ago
@hayden50 It's pitiful that you must find youtube videos to educate yourself on a particular subject, especially this shitty one created by a Zeitgeist member. Of course, I should expect this from a brainwashed libertarian. I forgot that is how you got "educated" LOL. "Any system of government in which the few control the many" So you're saying all governments are tyranny? Again, you are swallowed by a cult-like ideology. Learn you use critical thinking skills and STOP DRINKING THE KOOLAID!
newb2yutube 5 months ago
talking with eachother, not to eachother? Do not attack and harass eachother, please. Compare and exchange ideas, listen and try to understand eachother. Democrats, republicans, technocrats, zeitgeisters... In the end we're all humans, with the same basic needs according to the laws of nature. Let us all together start to move humanity away from insanity.
SaneJohn 6 months ago
Complimenti!
gasto5 6 months ago
Technocracy operates with income and expenditure, RBE does not. Besides that, the two concepts are pretty much alike. Todays technology and automation in industry can liberate mankind from the wage slavery. Back in the 30's, this was not the case. What about joining forces and strive together for the better management of the earths rescources? See the similarities and the positives in different systems and approaches and bridge the differences by discussion, understanding and talking with eacho
SaneJohn 6 months ago
@SaneJohn Sorry, but you are misinformed on the topic of Technocracy. There is no income or expenditure because it measures production costs on the basis of the degradation of energy quality. Meaning it's already "spent". It is not a money, debt, debit, or credit system(i.e. price/monetary system) It operates with a balance load concept of production and consumption, hence, the Monad symbol. Please read the Technocracy Study Course and associated essay information for further understanding.
newb2yutube 6 months ago
@SaneJohn We propose equal consumption rights in terms of available "energy units" consumable among the population which changes with demand and available resources. As for the differences, you are also forgetting the organization of the government(i.e. People with specialized knowledge working together to make a functioning government). That aspect of the design is very important for communication and of course functional governance.
newb2yutube 6 months ago
@SaneJohn Those two aspects are what separate ZM and Technocracy technate design which are BOTH RBE's.
newb2yutube 6 months ago
The ideas of Tech Inc and TZM are quite compatible. We cannot allow ignorance and fear of those with specialized knowledge to overwhelm our willingness to seek the answers for ourselves; intellectual coddling (holding on to irrelevant, useless beliefs) and lack of initiative are inexcusable in the modern information age.
AceObrin 6 months ago 6
Technocracy, as originated by Technocracy, Inc., would exist exclusively to serve the public good. The elimination of special interests (i.e., politics) in decision making processes is essential to the RBE design discussed by both Tech, Inc. and TZM. Today, technical experts are usually serving private interests (corporations) and have an incentive to go against the public good. Tech, Inc, however, proposes equal consumption rights that cannot be abridged or arbitrarily modified.
AceObrin 6 months ago
Technocracy, as originated by Technocracy, Inc., would solely serve the public good. The elimination of special interests (i.e., politics) from decision making processes is essential to their design and to RBE as it is discussed within TZM. Consumption rights cannot be modified by any decree or decision; the biggest "special interest" would be the drive to be remembered for progress, which requires there to be a future and hence, sustainability. The ideas of both movements are quite compatible
AceObrin 6 months ago
Hi, just finished the french translation. Keep up the good work.
Cheers !
JulienCornuwel 6 months ago
I like the way you are thinking.......thank you for sharing your view. I like it!!
repeat108 6 months ago
Great Video Federico! You should check out a project that attempts to create a framework of applying the scientific to social direction, google 'Zemerge' - its a computing project of applying genetic algorithms to social simulations in order to help us derive optimal evidence based social decisions. Cheers!
skuzie7 6 months ago
"WHAT THE SCIENCE HAVE YOU DONE?!?"
This is beautiful!
PalulukanMakto 6 months ago
Rather than continual bashing, perhaps realizing people are trying to solve problems, so aiding is a better result to the process.
mobildeath 6 months ago 12
Good one, simple, consistent and coherent. Congrats!!!
sssliderrr 6 months ago
I support your attempt to educate and inform us about the scientific method and basic critical thinking skills. Resource management and sound reasoning CAN come together in our lifetime and I believe the paradigm will shift to support such evolution. Brilliantly simple approach. Thank you!! Namaste
tmthy1961 6 months ago
EXCELLENT. Parli Italiano? contattami per repeace Italia (repeace.com) Andrea
iREPEACE 6 months ago
People have successfully made me not want to post anything on TZM or TVP videos by just the outrageous attacking, backward logic, and personal beliefs that cant be let go, ___(Fill blank with other fear tactics). I dont think just logic is going to convince people, because,as you said, we live in an ignorant society, and its plainly easy to see everywhere you go, even online. I think were going to need to take a bigger step backward before we make the big leap forward.
TOTALBLACKMETAL 6 months ago
@TOTALBLACKMETAL Some of it is well deserved on the other hand you do get crazies like Ayn Randroids, Conspiracy nut jobs etc. that can't tell the difference between critically thinking and believing in clap trap. HOWEVER, you brought that on yourselves as a movement by the crazy BULL you people made during your first movie and budding "movement". Also, your movement isn't really anything substantial in terms of science. You also introduce MANY moralist philosophies which ISN'T science...
newb2yutube 6 months ago
@newb2yutube You completely left out a major factor: Behavior.
How is behavior developed?
Do research on this subject. A lot of research; not from just a few sources. Connect this research with the way our society works. Connect it with science and technology. Think critically about all the factors and how they interact. Simply 'knowing' numbers doesn't have much relevance; technology is one factor among many, and those factors are not 'independent' of each other.
somebungholio 6 months ago
@newb2yutube you're conflating the movies with the movement. The movement did not make the films. Peter Joseph did. He has gone on record to state that the first film was as much a personal rant as anything, which he didn't expect to amount to anything. TZM didn't exist until after the 2nd film 'Zeitgeist: Addendum'. The movement is a communications project, hoping to pave the way for humans to apply the scientific method for social concerns and present ideas to create discussion; nothing more.
mysterywhiteboy72 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@mysterywhiteboy72 No, you can't wash something like that with very poor excuses. Josephs purpose was to create a movement or "Zeitgeist" in his first film. A personal rant?...Please. So, that excuse doesn't really fly. I realize they've moved on, somewhat from that baggage. However, It's still there and is a major part of your critics.
newb2yutube 6 months ago
@mysterywhiteboy72 I think it's great that they are pushing for the "application of the scientific method for social concerns". That's exactly word for word what technocracy has proposed since 1918. That was the reason they used the word Technocracy. As for presenting ideas and creating discussions, I very much doubt that. Most of the people in the group have no clue about where those ideas first originated. When trying to educate in the forums any discussion on technocracy is shut down.
newb2yutube 6 months ago
@mysterywhiteboy72 So, it seems most people in control of the group are only interested in "their" ideas. This is why I think this video is a poor portrayal of what technocracy is. Ignorance breeds more ignorance, what's so hard about learning about an interesting group that preceded TVP or TZM? It was no doubt part of it's influence. Fresco himself was a member. It's just sad and shows the intellectual capacity of Joseph himself who to this day claims to not know much about Technocracy. Sad...
newb2yutube 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@mysterywhiteboy72 Also, the really sad thing about the whole movement is that every day, they sound more and more like Technocrats. Like, for example, his stating that all our issues are technical in nature. Pretty much what technocrats have been saying since day one i.e. " Governance by science,
social control though the power of technique" or "Production for use, not profit" I think the recent break up from TVP further proves my point. I believe Fresco to be an egoist or scam artist, or both.
newb2yutube 6 months ago
@newb2yutube why is it sad? All knowledge is serial, going back as far as the first tool users. Think of knowledge as a piece of string reaching through the ages, with divergent strings. Guy a) uses a flint to crack open a nut, guy b) sees this and attaches flint to a bone with some twine etc etc. This is evident in many areas. Arguably modern pop music wouldn't have been possible without the blues, but after some time it is not necessary to mention the blues as it is a given.
mysterywhiteboy72 6 months ago
Great video!
BrentAltonNally 6 months ago
Ciò che dici è giusto...come è giusto quello che si dice in buona parte dei documentari che criticano la società moderna, il problema è che sono sempre e solo buone idee, mai concretizzate.E' ora di decidere come agire difronte ai grandi cambiamenti che stanno avvenendo e di dare istruzioni (motivate) alla gente su come agire.L'informazione c'è, ora manca solo l'azione concreta...Tra l'altro mi puzza sta storia dei Bitcoin...cosa c'entrano con Zeitgeist?E' solo un sistema monetario alternativo..
grogmaninteractive 6 months ago
Technocracy has always been specific about how they originated their ideas. From the works of Willard Gibbs, the father of physical chemistry. The group has also had many notable people who worked on the ideas such as M. King Hubbert, Richard C. Tolman, Charles Steinmetz, Veblen, Scott, etc. Their thesis and designs are just as applicable today as they were then. I suggest you people educate yourselves on an interesting topic instead of criticizing from ignorance. The least you can do is read.
newb2yutube 6 months ago
I don't want to argue about this with you guys as you seem blind in your faith toward the movement, peter joseph, fresco or whatever else you choose but these "ideas" have no intellectual cadence but seem to "originate" as derivatives of early works of Technocracy technate design. If you dig deep and follow any ideas or scientific progress history you will see a progression of ideas. That is a fact. So, the question begs what came before TZM ideas? They surely didn't come from thin air...
newb2yutube 6 months ago
I would also call TZM or TVP a moralist environmental ideology. You people are definitely not scientific nor provide any historical evidence such as Technocracy has done since the 1920's with Biophysical economics, industrial ecology, ecological economics and more. The criticisms I hear from you people are pathetic. What is wrong with Technocracy?...."It's old and ours is better"...How? Why? "It has an elite which will be corrupted!" Is that supposed to be a scientific conclusion? Sad...just sad
newb2yutube 6 months ago
This video is just sad. Way to be truly objective in your analysis of Technocracy. If you are ignorant of a particular subject, then don't criticize it as you have done. Experts are in charge of the technical challenges that face society. Their purpose is to sustain a government of function. This can only work in the economic system is of a non market biophysical economic design. Otherwise known as Energy Accounting. The only thing influencing scientists or experts are facts and data.
newb2yutube 6 months ago
Next time let a native English speaker do the talking. It would be easier to understand for most people.
zeytin13 6 months ago
I enjoyed that very much, thank you
Xerohtlp 6 months ago
I do not see a RBE working till the human race as a whole agrees it is not a race and that the "race " is whats killing our life source/s.
Too many people in our society love and defend the very chains that keep them from UNCONDITIONAL LOVE.
slimmworker 6 months ago
Genius !
twistedbass15 6 months ago
Thank you TZM.
slimmworker 6 months ago
excellent video Federico, I think this is the most well made explanation of using science for social concern ever! Thanks so much for this useful tool~
Ztimes22 6 months ago
"It works bitches"!, was my favourite part.
TronixGuy93 6 months ago
@TronixGuy93 i think it's from xkcd.com
gurghet 6 months ago
Hello! I think that you've made a great video.. Your explanations about the failures of our current system are very clear and strong.. I'm extending it and hope that you continue exploring more topics for the benefit of all of us. Thanks, dude. Hugs from Brazil. LJ.
78032012 6 months ago
odd that the venus project isn't mentioned.
longshotnl 6 months ago
@longshotnl Like all systems there will be variations. I'm sure there will be a Capitalist variation of TVP or adaptations thereof before the system fails entirely. To them TVP is an extremist. Eventually extreme conditional problems within that system will lead them to using extreme conditional solutions, likely bordering briefly on the TVP type of solution.
TronixGuy93 6 months ago
@TronixGuy93 The zeitgeist movement is the communication arm of the venus project and is not some innitiative on itself. The purpose of TZM is to communicate TVP to others. This is not doing a great job at that.
longshotnl 6 months ago
@longshotnl "The zeitgeist movement is the communication arm of the venus project"
Not any more.
shogu666 6 months ago
@longshotnl I know what it is. Communicating an idea as good as this one is never easy. All ideas and theories must meet and pass peer review. TZM & TVP aren't reaching the masses because they've been conditioned to believe that money is req'd for existence to persist. Money is the antithesis of TVP. Naturally they're not gonna mix, and there will be some ignorant souls out there willing to fight against it or refuse to speak about it because they don't know whats good for them anymnore.
TronixGuy93 6 months ago 13
This has been flagged as spam show
@TronixGuy93 Not really.
The Venus Project and Zeit is only dumbed down Technocracy concepts that J.F. stole from the more interesting original group. He contributed nothing but ego and P.J. does not know or care about the history of the group TechInc. The original Technocracy Study Course is the thing to check out. Also the Facebook group Technocracy Revolution is active with information currently.
TBonePickensetc 4 months ago
Looks like your jumping off point is the Zeitgeist movement. That is a pity because it has much baggage... conspiracy nonsense and J. Fresco aspects or morality and ethics.
Fresco has zero to do with Technocracy ideas. Google Technocracy technate... and Technocracy Study Course to learn about the technate design.
Zeitgeist is embarrassing clap trap.
Peter Joseph and Fresco have made a career of ripping off the much more interesting ideas of Howard Scott and M. King Hubbert.
TBonePickensetc 6 months ago
Comment removed
BlindPlague 6 months ago
@BlindPlague your a know nothing ripp=off artist of ideas. I asked you before to take the Pederson vids of your site Plague. Mostly you think the laws of physics are outmoded?
You want to consult an economist. Your an idiot if your not educable.
TBonePickensetc 6 months ago
Great Video! Short n Sweet.
WakeUpWorldTV 6 months ago
Very good video. Have you read "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris? A couple of your phrases reminded me of him :)
jonfonn 6 months ago
People could apply these principles or at least advocate for these principles at the local level such as school boards, city councils, mayoral elections, etc.... We only need one community to create the model - those beneficial results will naturally spread like wildfire.
SILLYFROGFART 6 months ago
@SILLYFROGFART The problem is such a community would be deemed a threat to national security or so isolated by embargo that it would be forced to failure, or be pushed back to the stone age.
TronixGuy93 6 months ago
@miscreanity
Politics is economics carried out by other means. While you assert (correctly) that the current "capitalist" system denoted by Frederico is a Ponzi scheme and not "true capitalism", I have yet to have explained to me how mass concentrations of capital in any system will not lead to the formation of power establishments and the subsequent efforts to preserve them. There are no life-coordinates in a capitalist system, just rational self-interest and a belief in an invisible hand.
rawseaone 6 months ago
1) Technocracy is incorrectly spelled "Technoracy" 1m 47s
2) Manage is spelled "mange" 4m 18s. This seems however to correct itself on Youtube itself, but not in the TZM Global site embedded link.
3) Perpetuate is incorrectly spelled "perpetrating" 5m 28s. You also said "perpetrating", so you might need a re-record. I am of course assuming that you meant to say "perpetuating".
I point these out not to be pedantic but to improve the overall quality of an excellent presentation.
rawseaone 6 months ago 11
@rawseaone Perpetratin, though, could be an appropriate word given the scenario being described.
TronixGuy93 6 months ago
@TronixGuy93 I really, really think he meant self-perpetuating. It makes way more sense than self-perpetrating, a term I've never even heard used in a sentence. What could self-perpetrating even mean? Something that was committed by yourself? Try a use it in a sentence.
rawseaone 6 months ago
@rawseaone Sally self-perpetrated arson on her home. Joe self-perpetrated a crime against himself. Heshe self-perpetrated that act on themself. Works for me. Sentences don't always have to sound correct to be correct.
TronixGuy93 6 months ago
@rawseaone thanks for the suggestions. Unfortunately YouTube does not allow you to change the video source, so I added annotations to correct the misspelled words. :)
federicopistono 6 months ago 12
@federicopistono Instead of getting your information solely from wikipedia, I suggest you read the Technocracy Study Course unabridged to get a comprehensive view of Technocracy technate design. I'm sure you'd ask the same of others if they were looking into TVP or TZM. Just a suggestion, cause your information in you video is very inaccurate.
newb2yutube 6 months ago
@federicopistono We're fixing them in prep for translations. ;)
ZMLinguisticTeam 6 months ago
the balanced will soon be tipped and i only hope and pray it is the ecological sustaining of this planet and the increase in our well being which will become the most popular idea when we rebuild ourselves :D
shaunablain 6 months ago
I'm guessing this is a psuedo-response to the guys at BitCoin forums. They were really rowdy over there, no doubt about it--it gave me a headache reading through all that rhetoric. Just try to stay focused Frederico!
masterkl16 6 months ago 2
Well done mate, this video really approaches the scientific method! Keep it up, but try not to be offensive next time. People tend to shut you out from their minds when you say "no, you are wrong" or being ironic.
DarthStathius 6 months ago
Excellent video!
For the next videos I suggest using more images side to side with the text.
Thank you for your work! Amazing!
ZeitgeistSwitzerland 6 months ago
Excellent video, well written and to the point
BlindPlague 6 months ago
Capitalism is often conflated with politics despite it being an economic system. It does not need to grow in size to sustain itself. In fact, capitalism naturally observes creative destruction - reduction of waste. What you described in the video was a Ponzi scheme, not capitalism.
miscreanity 6 months ago
@miscreanity I suggest you educate yourself. Capitalism is the most wasteful of systems it has in-builded planned obsolescence
shogu666 6 months ago 5