The Zeitgeist Movement [UKH+] (2/8)

Rapid improvements in automation, AI (artificial intelligence), and resource management provide the opportunity for us to envision new models of economics. This talk will look at some important questions that arise:

*) How does the monetary system actually operate, and what are its consequences upon society?

*) What are the consequences of increasing displacement of human labour by machines?

*) Are monetary incentives necessary to spur product development?

*) What prospects are there to transition to more rational systems for allocating resources and pursuing technological innovation?

*) Is an economy without money feasible?

Since its foundation just over a year ago, the growing popularity of the Zeitgeist Movement is raising the visibility of questions like these. Anyone interested in radical ideas about the future of human society is invited to take part in a wide-ranging debate on these topics, led by Ben McLeish.

About the speaker:

Ben McLeish is one of the principal organisers of the Zeitgeist Movement in the UK, and is an accomplished speaker and presenter. He is a graduate of the University of Warwick, where he studied English, Literary and Cultural Theory.

This lecture was recorded on 5th June 2010 at the UKH+ meeting. For information on further meetings please see:
http://extrobritannia.blogspot.com/

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• zeitgeist
• venus
• project

[El3ctricPenguin]

According to Wolfram Alpha:

safe was used as an adjective first in 1280 and came as a noun later in 1430.

[hypernation2007]

@chronius9 Tell me where I went wrong, please. I read as much as I could on the history and the mechanisms of modern banking. In short, all the content comes from economists and historians, not me. So you are really saying that a load of economists and bank heads don't understand the monetary system.

[chronius9]

who had created this does not know about money anything or know something not right.

[bradweirca]

@sachamm

not saying perfection

best possible at a given tim.

not perfect but the best of our capabilities. the only reason for this aspect of the argument is in todays world the duplicate products are made even cheaper to be affordable to the masses. this train of thought is maximizing efficiency so there would be no reason to make a TV lower in quality than another for affordability.

perfection doesnt exist

[sachamm]

@bradweirca There are 2 types of things that we are talking about. Your argument for concrete items (hammers) is that they will achieve perfection and thereby never change. But change is inevitable, so this does not fly for me.

The 2nd type of item is the "creative" things (art), which are unique and depend on perception for their value, I don't think you have an argument for... the "art centre" idea I think you can see is insufficient.

[bradweirca]

@sachamm

i can just imagin ppl for no reason painting the same painting over and over lol

sounds like a bad movie

[bradweirca]

@sachamm

keep it rational please im not wasting my time here.

hammers yes. if there is a hammer type that was better/ stronger for what ever reason then that is how the hammers would be made.

there will not be different types of tv's cell phones laptops etc.. instead created the best way technically. again this is gonna lower consumption.

art centers clothing things centered around creativity will go in what ever direction it does

[sachamm]

@bradweirca So I'm really confused: are you seriously proposing that all hammers will be identical some time in the future? How about all paintings? How about all art centres?

[bradweirca]

@sachamm

more and more jobs being automated(and no emergent sector to go)

how will the ever increasing unemployed % get funds to trade with?

and my second point is at what point of unemployment/displacement will be tolerated before a backlash by the ppl happens?

the train of thought goes there are no best hammers and cheap hammers.. no best house and shit houses. good jobs bad jobs.

there is no reason to make ANYTHING deliberately worse than another for it is more wasteful of our resources

[sachamm]

@bradweirca I actually agree that in the future many things will be automated. Doesn't matter as far as trade is concerned. The difference in perceived value is all that matters. There will still be competition for the best jobs, best houses, best hammers. Competition means trade, trade means money.