Watch videos with subtitles in your language, upload your videos, create your own subtitles! Click here to learn more on "how to Dotsub"

V-Radio VTV-Roxanne-Jacque-Peter-Douglas

0 (0 Likes / 0 Dislikes)
Peter: Hola, soy Peter Joseph, y estás escuchando V- radio. Neil: Sí, Peter Joseph. Aprueba este show y esa pequeña grabación. Y también está con nosotros esta noche en un reparto lleno de estrellas. Incluyendo una aparición sorpresa de Jacque Fresco y Roxanne Meadows. Esta noche en V- radio tendremos a Peter Joseph, el director de las películas de Zeitgeist. y fundador del Movimiento Zeitgeist, Jacque Fresco, fundador del Proyecto Venus y Roxanne Meadows también con el Proyecto Venus , y Doug Mallette Ingeniero que trabaja en el programa del transbordador espacial. Me llegan muchos comentarios acerca del show. Quiero agradecer a todos. Ahora Peter, ¿estás con nosotros, ya que vendrías al blog? Peter: Eso espero, Neil. ¿Puedes oírme? Neil: Sí. Excelente. Suenas genial. -Bien. Bueno, es sólo que no estaba seguro de que el tablero estuviera iluminado. Entonces, seguro, tengo el número correcto. Como sea, es genial tener a todos esta noche, y como hemos discutido anteriormente, de hecho, déjame adelantarme y decirle a los auditores: Si esta es tu primera vez escuchando V- radio, si te registras en Blog Talk Si te consigues unacuenta gratis y puedes presionar el botón "seguir" del show y luego te mandará notificationes al correo cada vez que programe un segmento o cuando esté transmitiendo. Otra buena manera de saber cuando V- radio va a comenzar es agregándome a tu twitter y tu facebook. Puedes hacerlo si vas a v-radio.org (V, guión medio, punto org) Ahí también puedes ver archivos de los muchos shows en el pasado, algunos links de películas gratis que puedes ver que recomindo totalmente acerca de este tema incluyendo mi entrevista con (en) Venus, Florida con Jacque y Roxanne, y además de eso, el filme Awakening de Doug también está vinculado ahí. y finalmente, puedes ir a mi sección de contactos puedes agregarme a skype, puedes agrearme a tu facebook, a tu twitter y a mi myspace. Están todos vinculados ahí y son todos buenas maneras de saber cuando estoy listo para continuar. Así que Para aquellos que llevan aquí un tiempo, donación V- radio que está activa en el mes, siéntanse libres de colaborar un par de dólares si puedes darte el lujo. Esto es básicamente una situación de radio sostenida por auditores y ustedes son la razón por la que hago esto. Ahora con toda esa identificación fuera del camino, Voy a continuar y dejar que la gente aquí se presente Adelante y preséntate Peter. Nunca sabes cuando tienes un nuevo oyente. Peter: Oh seguro, bueno soy Peter Joseph EL creador de los filmes de Zeitgeist, el fundador por supuesto del Movimiento Zeitgeist, y no puedo pensar en nada más que decirte sobre eso. Neil, así que creo que todos saben quién soy, espero. Neil: Sí, eso es suficiente. Es sólo para que la gente pueda identificar la voz con el nombre. Y, ¿Sr. Doug Mallette? Doug: Hola a todos. Creo que ese fue el discurso más corto de Peter que jamás he escuchado. Mi nombre es Douglas, soy ingeniero asistente en el programa del transbordador espacial, aquí en el este de Texas. Soy el creador de "Despertar, Nuestra Realidad Técnica", recientemente realizé una lectura en Suiza, respecto a la sostenibilidad, presentando la ideología del Proyecto Venus a un grupo de personas, y una parte muy activa del Movimiento. Bueno, es genial tenerte. ¿Jacque, Roxanne? ¿Quieren venir y presentarse? ¿Ya se han levantado? Puesto que son las 2 de la madrugada en donde están para estar en el show. Roxanne: Sobre la introducción para Jacque y yo, Jacque es el fundador del Projecto Venus Ubicado en Venus, Florida por eso el nombre del Proyecto Venus. y, he estado trabajando con Jacque por 35 años Él probablemente ha estado trabajando en el proyecto la mayoría de su vida. Tiene 94. Peter Joseph con el film Zeitgeist Addendum ayudó a dar a conocer este proyecto al mundo. Neil: Bien, gracias, gracias de nuevo chicos por venir esta noche. Es realmente una grata sorpresa Para aquellos que ahora pensaron "¡Hey no hablaste de Jacque y Roxanne estarían esta noche!" Básicamente ellos... ellos escucharon sobre el programa y me mandaron un correo para que los incluyera en esta importante conversación acerca de entender la Economía Basada en Recursos. Afortunadamente, Peter ha estado meditando sobre este hecho por un tiempo y confeccionó un artículo que también estará apareciendo en el siguiente boletín del Movimiento Zeitgeist. Así que podrán darle un pequeño vistazo. Peter, si quieres como dije antes. ¿Lo leémos por secciones y luego quizás nos demos un tiempo para discutir la sección dada? y luego de que todos digan lo que quieran sobre eso, entonces nos movemos al siguiente. ¿Estás cómodo con ese formato? Peter: Suena bien para mi. Supongo que el artículo escrito no es ampliamente largo, pero tomará algo de tiempo abordarlo; de leerlo, verbalmente naturalmente. Pero estoy feliz de hacerlo. Trato de pensar en la mejor manera de desglosarlo para que tengamos alguna pausa. Serpentea un poco. No es un artículo definitivo por que es muy difícil de exlicar a la gente acerca de cómo llegamos a decisiones que no se familiarizan con el proceso de, "llegar a una decisión" significa realmente. Porque estamos tan absortos en esta idea de democracia que tenemos desde hace tanto, este concepto arcaico donde la gente se junta y esta mafia manda, y de alguna forma esta mafia equivale a una toma viable de decisiones; y hay muchas razones para entender que esa no es una forma viable de tomar decisiones y de hecho la historia lo ha provado como tal. Pero trataré de extrapolar lo que pueda mientras leo, quizá dé algunos saltos, Pero claro, Entraré de lleno en ello ¿Qué te parece? Niel: No hay problema. No es tan largo. Al menos comparado con alguna de las cosas que hemos leído en emisiones anteriores, así que adelante. Peter: Ok. Bien, voy a entrar de lleno en ello. Trataré de ser lo más coherente posible mientras leo. La estructura principal de una Economía Basada en Recursos es muy diferente de lo que conocemos hoy en día. Mientras el sistema de envolvimiento social y el modelo presente, para la mayoría de los países recibe el título de "Democratico", si revisas estas cuestiones exhaustivamente, estas prácticas tradicionales, tenderás a encontrar Ese proceso democrático que vez en estas susodichas "naciones libres" del mundo es realmente muy, muy engañoso. Un punto en común hecho dentro el Movimiento Zeitgeist y por lo tanto en el Proyecto Venus es que nuestros problemas sociales son de hecho técnicos, y no políticos. Pobreza, guerra, imperativos educacionales, hambre, cáncer, problemas médicos, energía, escacez,desempleo y similares, no existen como cuestiones políticas en realidad, A pesar de que generalmente son referidas como tal, son de hecho técnicas por naturaleza. y por lo tanto, cada cuestión sólo requiere una solución técnica o, de hecho, física, cuando lo piensas lo suficientemente profundo. Creo que esto se cumple virtualmente sin excepción. Cuando uno es capaz de ver a través de la distracción del ruido político. de la retórica dogmática proveniente de esta normalidad tradicional endurecida y, por supuesto, la arcacica máquina política. Que yo considero como un lastre obstinado, si se quiere, de nuestra evolución social en este planeta. Incluso Jacque fue el primero en preguntarme la primera vez que lo entrevisté, "¿Qué es Democracia?" y él me dijo, "¿Votaste por alguna de las guerras? ¿Votaste por el gabinete del Presidente? "¿Votaste por alguno de los programas que el gobierno ha propuesto?" Y su punto fue muy simple: En el sistema actual, la gente no vota realmente por nada excepto por otra gente. Políticos para ser exacto. Que aparte, están báscicamente desprovistos de cualquier habilidad técnica aplicable. Y si analizas la población política, la mayoría de los individuos en el poder están ahí por sus sugerencias, y no por sus logros. También vale la pena notar, en el tema del sistema actual, que los políticos son elegidos, y aún así, no tienen ninguna obligación legal de cumplir ninguna de las promesas que hicieron al público cuando compitieron por el cargo. Y sólo pueden ser removidos de sus cargos cuando sus periodos terminan, y eso puede tomar años. Así que decir que estamos en una democracia activa donde gente es colocada en posiciones que en realidad no requieren hacer nadad es una brecha gigante. Es importante que el pública entienda esto, que el pueblo realmente no contribuye de manera significativa a la sociedad como existe hoy. A pesar de que la ilusión es bastante dominante. Por otra parte, para adentrarme en el aspecto sociológico de esto, en la que me detengo extensivamente en este artículo, Los políticos como cualquiera son víctimas de la cultura, otra frase brillante de Jacque Fresco. No podemos entender la integridad de ningún ser humano sin considerar la integridad del ambiente en el que fueron criados y viven. Los mecanismos de refuerzo de ese ambiente generan y amplifican propósito y motivación y este entendimiento, cuando se considera en detalle, explica porqué esos en posiciones de poder dentro del sistema social actual se prestan perpetuamente a corrupción orientada al dinero y poder. Es simplemente recompensada, reforzada, e invariablemente necesaria para sostener a grupos selectos y sus valores. Ahora, hablando generalmente, recuerden que el ser humando no es diferente de cualquier otro animal en este planeta, Hablando generalmente, estamos gobernados por las leyes de la naturaleza que facilita nuestra supervivencia. La Evolución lo ha hecho muy claro, ese comportamiento animal y por tanto motivación es una consecuencia directa aprendida de un condicionamiento externo y reforzamiento. Ahora, por supuesto, la advertencia aquí, no estamos negando atributos genéticos o biológicos, Quiero asegurarme de que todos entiendan eso. No hay un pizarrón en blaco... estamos simplemente señalando la poca importancia que esto tiene para el pensamiento humano especifico, experiencia activa referencial, valores y la así llamada moral o amoral toma de decisiones. que por supuesto escuchamos en la esfera política constantemente. Hago un ejemplo de esto en el artículo donde indico como un niño, cada uno de nosotros entra en contacto con fuego. Y podríamos meter nuestra mano en la flama y obtener una doloroza quemadura. Así que tenemos este acondicionamiento operante, que asegura el entendimiento, naturalmente, que el fuego quema y causa dolor. Así que nos alejamos de tocar fuego. es totalmente obvio, pero desafortunadamente ignorado, esta interfaz entre organismo y medio ambiente, es lo que la psicología moderna poco a poco ha venido a ver como un factor crítico de expresión del comportamiento humano. But of course, it's not expressed as such. You know.. we don't.. no one really relates this to anything, that's why we keep hearing about moral issues. So free will.. and now this is a very important point and I'm going to stop after this paragraph. Because I think Jacque may be able to comment on this because I think this is very critical. Free will on one side and genetic predisposition theories, are essentially what the dominant status-quo... excuse me.. Is what's put forward for human behavior. I'm going to say that again: Free will and genetic disposition theories basically ignore the environment as the cause for any given human behavior. And this is like saying that a tree is "guilty" for falling on a house after it has been hit by lightning. In other words, it irrationally puts the blame on the individual and dismisses the environment, and this is of course how the entire American legal system intrinsically operates as it imprisions more and more people every year, ignoring the circumstances which generate their behavior. So, to move quickly, I'm going to skip a certain paragraph of this just because I want to make this point about politicians and then I'll stop. We assume that politicians are different in some way. We assume they have some higher moral ground that they're not subject to the operant conditioning that generates their values. We assume that they're different. But really, they operate in the same self-preservation capacity that almost everyone else has to do in some way. Really the staple of the monetary influence, which of course is the pivotal element of corruption in our system, Monetary lobbying in congress... this would be illegal if money wasn't a factor. It isn't because money is the ultimate facilitator. And government as we know it is nothing more than a business. It is erroneously assumed that government is more poweful than the corporate or monetary establishment. And this is utterly naive and illogical. Government can only operate within the confines of the monetary system. So, I'm going to stop here. The moral and ethical distinctions we see within the political sphere are empty, nonsensical notions, there's no point in even considering these issues because the behavioral conditioning overrides all of this, and there's no end to the corruption. No end to the power surge. No end to the necessity. No end to the preservation that culminates within the political sphere. So we can't rely on politicians, so I'll stop there. Neil: Alright, let me go ahead and start with you, Doug. Do you have comments so far? Doug: Right now I’m 110% in agreement with everything that was just said. The environmental conditions in which somebody is reared, is basically ignored except in the social scientific studies that seem to go on. But they don’t, for some reason, find their way into real life and the actual practices that we employ to govern ourselves. Politics is nothing more than a tool of the system that is broken in the first place. And so, without question, a significant factor to negate the environmental conditions that somebody is reared and dismiss it, and constantly throw, well it`s individual choice, or not always individual choice, it's individual molding, that leads to that individual's choice. And that is something a lot of people unfortunately just don’t have their minds wrapped around. Neil: Right. Well, is there anything that you wanted to add, Roxanne? Or, just want to continue with the conversation? Jacque: Continue the conversation Roxanne: Yeah, go ahead. Neil: Well, I guess the only comments I would add as far as the situation in regards to politicians, and I tell people this, I told them that in my newsletter... The only real purpose your ever going to find out of the political system as it currently exists is as a soap box. You use it essentially to get people's attention. People come to a lot of things like politics because They think that's where the answers are. They've been convinced that's where the answers are. And for example, third party politicians don't really plan to get elected. They run because people will show up to things like voter forums, debates, things of that nature. And you know you're not going to get a massive amount of people, but you are going to get the people, who I call the low-hanging fruit, who are at least willing to listen. You're going to find them when you... When I ran for congress as a libertarian, there was no way I was ever going to win. But, I got invited to a lot of things; mainstream radio; mainstream television. That's really the only thing you can do. And you know, you would think that you would feel bad about that, but that's essentially the way the whole system is run anyway. As Peter pointed out, it's basically just a dog and pony show. So for that reason, is it corrupt to use the dog and pony show for your own purposes? You're a citizen just like anybody else. You get up on the soap box and you're free to say whatever you want. And that's really it. If you're thinking that politicians are ever going to be in a position to solve the majority of your problems, you obviously haven't run for office yet. So, that was my only addition. Do you want to continue Peter? Peter: Sure, I'll just comment on that. Even if it wasn't a dog and pony show, which we all know it essentially is, these individuals do not have the awareness, or the training, or the important referential understanding. In other words, they don't actually reference anything when they make decisions. And that's going to bring me to the next section of the article. So what I did in the next section of the article is I actually made a comparison of the U.S. Constitution. Not for what the Constitution says, but for what it actually implies and eludes to. So hopefully my meaning will come through as I continue. As most know, the U.S. is considered a Democratic Republic, Meaning the democratic process as we know it is bound by a series of seemingly immutable statements and rights declarations upon which almost everything else is built. The founding fathers of America say as you will, did understand the importance of not relying exclusively on mob rule. In other words, a pure democracy in the context as we know today could be exemplified by considereing that 10 white men hanging 1 black man is a democratic decision. So, they realized that they needed to have somthing else, which is what defines this republic notion and this what became the U.S. Constitution. It is there to attempt to deter mass mistakes with the assumption of pre-existing impericals, if you will, by which the legal and democratic processes must adhere. Not to mention, as an aside, because I think this is very important for those who have really never thought about democracy in the loose sense that we practice it. Mass behavior, or herd behavior is, infact, far more malleable and controllable than individual behavior. Historically, mass consensus is often wrong and misguided. This provable endlessly. Numerous studies have been done on the issue, and as a very unique book, that I recommend for everyone to read, called Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds by Charles Mackay He discusses all of these different phenomena as mass, basically madness of crowds and what happens when people get together with the wrong information and this momentum moves and you know, with the majority basically in concert can behave in a far more distructive manner, far more irrational manner than the individual. And I think that the founding fathers of America probably understood this. So, they created the U.S. Constitution. But, who is to say that the U.S. Constitution is universal, or near emperical? Is there anything in that document that shows a chain of reasoning? Can it be quantified in any way? No, not at all. It is an intuitive document, not a technical one. However, and this is my point, there is a very important gesture within the U.S. Constitution. What it eludes to, is the idea that there are indeed somewhere, governing empiracals, or at least near empiracals, that's the term that I use, upon which all other choices must be referenced. It is here, where I bring up the subject of the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method, which represents orders of natural law, if you want to give it that term, such as physical science and mathematics, and even the fundamental needs for nutrition the need for clean water and everything else required for our personal and social survival and progress, could be considered into the real "constitution" of social and natural governance for our species survival on this planet. It is the methodological referent that has stood the test of time. In fact, I would say it's the greatest intellectual human discovery and progression of knowledge we have ever come to understand and it's unfortunate, as Jacque points out, that we are barely out of the dark ages on this planet, and I think this really where the honing in of our understandings and values must relate to the Scientific Method. So, given this, we now find that there is a real, a near empirical, testable measure upon which all of our concerns can be contextually considered. This is hence the platform for true social parcipitation. Coming back to the issue of arriving at decisions in a "democracy". And a Resource Based Economy presents this method as a basis for arriving at these decisions. It is the inherent "social" constitution by which all of our decisions must be referenced to clarity. Majority opinion is secondary to natural law. It doesn't matter how many people vote on outlawing gravity, nature doesn't care. Nature is not a democracy. So given this, participation in a resource based economy tends not to simply vote for a person or vote for an idea It is to infact interface with the process of logical inference and tested proven proofs, which show what works and what doesn't work in the natural world. In other words, it is not based on the wimbs or opinions of an idealogical group, but based upon physical law, causal reasoning, and all of the things that we can go through and test to see if it is actually viable. To see if it actually is sustainable. Now, I'm going to stop here in a moment. Actually you know what, I think this is a good position to stop infact because the next section I'm going to talk about has to do with the central database programs which contains referencial knowledge and that will be the interface, the physical interface that society and government would interact with if you will. But I'm going to stop there, So anything I said, please comment. Niel: Excellent. Well we'll leave that point in particular I can't wait to hear from Doug. Alright, Doug, go ahead and go first. Doug: Sure, it’s a very important and serious decision to make here, is that, nature is nature and, as you now, there are certain, as Peter mentioned, and I fully agree, we cant be as nature, the hole point of science is to try and allow us to explain our own conditions That's not just the human condition, but also the condition under which we live physics, chemistry and all the sciences that go about explaining the natural world, the natural universe, it's going beyond the world in that one. So that’s what science is, that what it’s goal is, to constantly try to poke at the universe and learn how it works and as best what we can, at the moment, we describe what we see in predictable – reliable ways so that we can duplicate or/and enhance the nature's capability for our own benefit and so, it's very important that if we are going to govern our selves, in a logical, proper way then it would make sense that our social construct be based on the very system that govern us. We are regulated by nature, whether if we like it or not, no matter what we invent in this planet or how many toys and bells and whistles people have If, lets say, a giant rock were to come and crash into this planet. You’re done. You cant fight that, not matter what you think would happen. Now, what we could do is come up with technology, ideas and devices that could prevent that from happenning. But in order to do that, you need to use science, and the methods by which science is done, in order to solve those kinds of problems. And so, it's very important to understand, and Peter said it, governing our selves by virtue of natural law is the best way to do it because that is what is going to give you the most probable truth at the moment, based on what you know. Neil: Well that's definitely the benefit of the Scientific Method; the most probable truth you can get at the moment. As I've said on previous shows, one of the absolute best things about the Scientific Method is unlike any other ideology unlike religion, unlike politics, unlike even political ideology. The moment that science discovers that something previously understood is incorrect, the new information becomes the science. That's why science is never wrong.It's not to say that science can't make mistakes, It's that science has no ego. It's not bound by tradition. It's not bound by, "Well, you better believe as we do, or you're going to burn in Hell." It's not bound by, "Well you better believe as we do, or you're a socialist, or you're a fascist, or you're a capitalist." It's "Well, this is what we've found." and now, it's the truth. If we find something new, that's the truth. All of the other things that have ever blurted have nothing to do with science's weaknesses, and have everything to do with what happens when the monetary system involves itself in anything else. The monetary system, as you said in Zeitgeist Addendum, taking on nearly religious proportions. People do worship money, and it ends up blurring everything. That's why we end up with situations like do we have a real answer on global warming? I'd like to say that we do, but we don't because there's just too much money in the situation to really know. Do we have a good answer on pharmaceutical vs. homeopathic drugs? No we don't. Because, there's too much money to be made in those types of things. These are the only things that hold back science. True science, which is pursued in the absolute search for knowledge above all else is the best solution that we have for making descisions. So, go ahead and continue, Peter. Peter: Did Roxanne want to comment on anything? Neil: Oh, yeah, good quesion. Roxanne: No, we were going to listen, primarily. Maybe come in later. Peter: Okay, so I'm going to jump into it. This is a very breif description of the central database as I quoted in the orientation guide that we put out. I think the terminology is slightly different in Jacque's book, The Best That Money Can't Buy. But it's just a summarization, but I'm just going to go ahead and read it and we'll worry about the semantics later. As denoted in our orientation guide, that anyone can download, we present what is termed as a central database. Which is a referential hub, for all human ideas to be essentially evaluated by. This database operates through pattern recognition which is very simply known as A.I. or artificial intelligence, there's nothing scary about it. For those that aren't really familiar with this, A.I. on a basic level is nothing more than code that can find and link relevant patterns for the logical culmination of a particular recognition. When you go to a word document, a very simple A.I. engine scans the patterns of the incorrectly spelled words that you punched in, and defragments, and it can basically orient around that to find what that pattern represents. Usually it takes a few tries some times. But it is a very primative thing but that is what A.I. very simply is. A more complex version of this, I'd like to throw out, which I've been studying recently, and I met somebody who's been working with the individual which very closely mirrors what The Venus Project proposes, what Jacque has proposed, in a more totality oriented way, meaning taking in the whole of human knowledge, is done by wolfram research called wolframalpha.com. It's a very primative search engine that this individual put together. Very very profound implications. But I just wanted to throw that out there. You can go to wolframalpha.com and read about this. It's very important. Now, on a more tangible level, just on the subject of A.I. in general. Future automobiles will not be designed by anyone. They will be generated in one shot by A.I. Based explicitly on a desired funciton and maximum efficiency and sustainability. Everything that we need to take the highest efficiency, the minimim negative retroaction just a very logical simplicity of how to survive and not pollute our environment, and to create longivity. That's all that would be essentially needed, the insertion of function into this program and with it's built in, ever-updating database of knowledge, it would generate the needed vehicle design for production in a single equation and solution. Again, it's a technical process. We humans, we only recognize and react to patterns. That's all we do. On this level, there's really nothing technical that will not be emulated by A.I. in the future. Infact as many know with singularity, machine intelligence will exceed human intelligence in the near future. This is not a threat, it's just a way to get rid of dangerous human opinion, and replace it with quantitative feedback mechanisms that arrive at conclusions based on as much input as possible. That is what an educated decision really is. It's to logically take into account all known variables, and I'm sorry, the human brain is far too primative to be able to do this at an efficient level needed to say run a government, to run production, to arrive at the best decisions for whatever the society may need. Now, I''ve gone through all of that little spiel, and someone listening might think, "Oh, well what does this have to do with democracy?" Well, once you realize that all real problems are technical and all solutions are solvable by taking in as much data as possible, organized by causal reasoning and pattern recognition, evaluated, tested by the scientific method, we then begin to understand that true social envolvement falls mostly in the relm of human need. What do we want? and why do we want it? And this is where the very critical subject of values come into play. And values of course are talked about in length by The Venus Project. Infact a lot of the ways values are the most important issue of all of the things we talk about with this cultural transition that we're trying to make. At this stage of the movement, this is where the focus should generally be because the technicals in my opinion are fairly simplistic when you begin to understand the broad view. So we have this baggage, this baggage of ignorance from prior periods. Not to mention, the really despotic reinforcement that we currently have in our monetary paradigm, which continues to perpetuate the social warfare, and just the general insustainable practices that we tend to see. Which is why The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement push for the removal of this system as fast as possible. In my personal view, I believe we are on pace for self destruction with the new technologies that are emerging, because the maturity level of society is far too poor for us to handle the new advanced advent that are coming. We have to be much more responsible. Look at what happened with the nuclear bomb. We had all of this tremendous energy that we could have used for space exloration, and all sorts of possibilities. And yet, we create a gigantic bomb that had the capacity in combination that could destroy all life on this planet. So when nano-technology comes to fruition, and you can create the nuclear bomb the size of a marble, We better have a very sophisticated culture to be able to handle that type of power. Otherwise, we're in a lot of trouble. So anyways, back on point. Democracy in this context is really about finding consensus with values. And I'm sorry to say, values are not equal. Some are more correct and hence sustainable While others are outdated and just plain wrong and hence unsustainable. While that statement might sound controversial, I'm sorry, but demons do not cause illnesses, we do not need to burn witches anymore, and people with tourette syndrome are no longer considered to be posessed by the devil as they were in the past, by a culture that didn't know any better. So, if the goal is human survival, then we can assess values, we can qualify values, and consider the affect they have on the process of human survival Those that do not have a positive effect or those more specifically that have a negative effect naturally, should be removed. I could go on a huge tangent on a massive list of values that are either obsolete, or have severe negative problems in the current culture, but I won't do that. As a basic example, I would just say for those that don't quite follow me that are listening, if you have a value, or you want to go out to pollute a stream with toxic waste in your neighborhood, I'm sorry, people are going to drink it, they're going to die, you might drink it yourself, so your value is intrinsically unsustainable to nature and yourself. Values are not equal and the real revolution is the revolution of human values shifting toward scientific understanding, to put it very simply. So, let me just go ahead and summarize the last few paragraphs. In a Resource Based Economy, we arrive at decisions by the scientific method, not mass consensus. Using a referential database, which can calculate technical solutions. Since democracy today incorrectly assumes that the mass public is infact adequately informed on every given technical issue, which of course is a huge stretch along with the historical reality that mass influence and propaganda can steer the masses in an entirely irrational way, we see that mob-rule simply can't be trusted. And that's a very important thing and controversial statement, but it really is the truth. It's extremely dangerous to give the masses pure control. Now this isn't to say that public opinon has no place, because educated public thought of the individual or a group does have a place. Because in the end, we are always going to be in an emergent environment. The totality of human knowledge is always going to need more and more input There are always going to be subtle problems that emerge, as a consequence of a lack of information. It is in this context, of course using the scientific method, pegging your understanding against a system that can actually put it together for you and understand it better than you can, taking in as many variables as possible, this is the context or participation I think will emerge in the future. So, public consensus, new research, input. This is needed. This is where and coupled of course with the values of what people want, given that there are sustainable values, such as entertainment, such as goods that infact are for pleasure. Not everything has to be absolute utility, we can have a fun life, naturally, but, they'd have to be sustainable one way or another. So, beyond that, I'll just conclude with this, the demans of human opinon, will always be second to demans of physical natural law, if our collective species goal is to actually survive on this planet. And as Doug pointed out, I will paraphrase we cannot impose our views on the world, we can only extract them. And that's the end of the article. Neil: Alright, excellent. Thank you very much for bringing that to us Peter. Peter: Sure, no problem. Neil: Lot's of good comments in the chat room. Doug, as we discussed in the pre-show conversation, this kind of delves into the techincal aspect that you're definitely the one who's the expert on. So why don't you go ahead and launch into whatever comments you had, and we'll further the conversation from there. Doug: Alright, with respect to what exactly? The limits of the scientific method, that we were talking about Neil: Well, first what you just said, then we will definitely get into all that Doug: Ok, I`ve said for quite sometime, and I want to make me sure I say this correctly, I`ve even said it in the forums before, even I don´t visit the forums that often because it drives me nuts but you know, opinions are not valid to me. Informed opinions are what´s valid to me. I do not want a baker telling me how to do my space job, or would I want to tell the baker how to do his job because that’s not my field of expertise, I have no knowledge there. However, for some reason,a lot of people seem to think their two sense matter, no matter what no matter what the topic or what the discussion happens to be about. And I’m sorry to say, to check the ego out the door, but it doesn’t, because there are times and places based on your knowledge and experience where your opinion is valid and helpful. And the rest of the time, you’re just throwing out an uniformed bunch of two sense, and the problem, I don’t really have a problem with people giving their opinions, because they might have this crazy idea, that could work, and it could be right. But the problem is, when they think that their idea must be listened to and must be followed with this idea, well if you don't do what I say, then you're ignoring me. Or you're not counting me, or you're hurting my feelings. The United States would be offended. So, it's this notion that just because they have an idea, for some reason, that is empirical, which is completely not the case. That doesn't mean that they should be ignored, but they should also have a certain amount of respect for the people involved and if they throw out an idea and a little bit of thought is put into it, and we decide that that might not work, but keep it in your head, because it might come back later and it might become valued, don't throw it away, just kind of chalk it up and keep it in the file cabinet. That's a more respectful dialog, and that's something that I don't see happening a lot. So people who advocate the notion we need to do direct democracy on things like the website, for example, not enough people are informed on exactly what the movement is about, to be jumping up and making decisions on how things are supposed to be run and as much as that might pain their egos to do that, they are just in a position to do that. So, I very much agree with that values need to change and you need to respect what others bring to the table It's not necessarily an appeal to authority, because people would like to probably throw that back in my face, no, it's an appeal to knowledge. That's what science does. When a scientific team is put together, they don't put the juinor kids right out of college in charge of the project. unless that person happens to be a certified genius, that is knowledgeable of whatever that task at hand needs to be accomplished. They put the most senior, technically educated and experienced person in charge of that particular team, to facilitate the accomplishment of whatever that scientific or engineering task needs to get done. Thats how things should be done, but we don't ever do that. We put politicians in charge who don't know their A from a hole in the ground, and they end up doing what we have seen over the past hundred years. Neil: Was that the finish of your comments so far? Doug: Yea, I think so. I don't want to... Peter: Well it had a.. I would very quickly just note that it's not an appeal to authority as it is an appeal to methodology. Everyone needs to make themselves subservient to the process of science and not get caught up in all of the culturally reinforced ego issues, and of course the assumption of opinon that everyone has a right to it, as you eloquently stated. Obviously, certain individuals have much more education in certain areas than others, and that should be respected. And it isn't that them as an entity is an authority, it's the fact that they have done the work. They are actually a culmination of the data. They are an entity with the knowledge, and they are hopefully using the methodology as we all should to consistently evaluate that knowledge and arrive at a proper conclusion. I look at the world as a data set, I meet people, I look at them as a data set. I try not to fall victim to all of the overtly whimsically human special kind of nonsense that we all put forward. We are all essentially programmed biological machines. As cold as that might sound, it's so relieving when you finally begin to absorb that. It's such a relief to understand how simle things actually are. So I'll leave it at that and not get too philisophical on you guys. Neil: Sure, No, that's fine. We've actually got plenty of time Peter, just so you're aware. We're barely even through the first hour. One of the things I wanted to say first of all about politicians, to add to what we have been discussing about how they don't know what they're talking about, as Jacque pointed out, politicians have no idea, they're not qualified.. Even, for example, one of my political mentors, Senator Mike Gravel, I used to be part of the Ron Paul movement. He's kind of the guy who actually got me further out of the box and really let me see politics for what it was. And at one time, I was running for congress, and I talked to him about it, and I asked him for advice in the unlikely event that I won, I was like, are there any classes I should take? or anything like that? And he was like, No, you don't have to bother with that. I was like Really, Why? He was like, Well, let's take Ron Paul for example. He was an obstetrician, he pulled babies into the world. How much of his expertise do you think had anything to do with parlimentary procedure, economics, you know he's an economist on his own, but none of his formal training has anything to do with anything, outside of being an obstetrician. So, it's to further state that most political science majors, actually end up working on campaigns. They don't generally become politicians themselves. Next, I would point out, for those who are concerned about any redistribution of authority, I think that it's important for people to understand that what we're talking about is not creating like I've heard that technocracy, for example, wanted to put scientists in charge of everything. We're not talking about that. Actually when you consider that The Venus Project's concept of education will become, as Jacque Fresco stated, we will all be generalists. We will all become qualified. What Doug is talking about is absolutely valid, in that you need to be qualified before you start throwing your weight around on a given project. You can also, in The Venus Project's society, a Resource Based Economy, free education of the highest quality where your professor, who I might add in current education, being a good teacher actually does not get you paid well as a university professor. Teaching is this other thing that they have you do. Writing research papers and getting more students in, is what gets you good teaching as a professor in the monetary system. This will cease to be in a Resource Based Economy. This isn't actually a tangent, it's all relevant to the point that I'm coming to, and that is that real education, that emphasizes critical and analytical thinking, that is available to every person, will change the way everybody thinks. As Jacque has pointed out, there's no reason that there needed to be only one Einstein of his era. One Edison, one Tesla. These are the kinds of people who ironically, usually the smartest people you find come from unusual educational backgrounds. Jacque Fresco, for example in his story that you've heard in my previous broadcast. Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, completely homeschooled because he was dyslexic. And these are all examples of people who are really brilliant who came outside of the normal educational norm, and I honestly think that's why they're smart. I usually tell people that. When I joke around with them I say, Hi I'm not very educated, that's why I'm smart. So we would redefine what education is, and for that reason, the confidence level of everyone will be higher. The example of a cybernated system that is given at the end of the film, Future By Design, no I'm sorry, The one with William Gazecki now I'm just having a moment of forgetting. At the end of it, they show a film and there's a bunch of people sitting at computers, and they're all able to participate in the conversation going on. And they all get to give their say, well what if we did this we the design, what if we did that with the design. Then after that, that's the participation we are talking about. You don't weigh what this many people think, over what this many people think unless you absolutely have to. It's better instead to simply demonstrate that you're right. If you can do that, then the answer is obvious. Anything else as soon as you start to make it come down to well this many people think it well then you run into the social stratification problem, "Well, I don't want to be the only guy not voting for this." Peter: Group mentality Neil: Exactly. You may have some kind of irrational problem, you know, maybe you don't like the guy who likes this other solution, and therefore, you don't want him to succeed, you've got some kind of social resentment issues. This all sounds to people like this doesn't apply to them, or this doesn't happen, but it goes on all the time. Doug: I perfectly illustrate that concept with my lecture in Switzerland. If you look at, in fact, what you are describing is why I did my lecture the way I did. I can go up there and say we have the technical capabilities to do all of this amazing stuff and provide abundance, but unless I provide proof, which is exactly what I did in the hand-out, I gave links to various examples of proofs of what I was saying, then my words are hollow. They mean nothing unless I can substantiate what I'm saying with valid proof of specific things to verify what I'm talking about. And a lot of people just say things, and then they are like, "Oh, we'll get that to you later on." or, "Just trust me, this is how it's going to happen." Well first of all, you're not the great Christian, you're not going to predict the future and know exactly how exactly it is supposed to pan out. I would much prefer to have proof thank you very much. And that's the one thing another reason why I'm kind of getting away from debating online, is because nobody ever brings anything to the table other than their comments, but they don't bring links or anything else for me to research that supports what they say. They just say something. But I on the other hand, will throw out link after link after link to support the various positions that I take. And that is why, if anybody has not yet seen my lecture in Switzerland, you can see how I put it all together, to show off the specific technologies that can provide abundance for every biological and quality of life need that a human being requires to live a great life on this planet. Nobody at that conference could in any way shape or form, discount what I was saying because I had links to prove it and proof is a significant part of the scientific method that is what will help alleviate bad solutions, improper reasoning, and just going off on tangents that lead us down bad roads. Neil: Right, excellent. That's very insightful. I would say that I would hope that people understand that the authority it needs to be taken out of things like ego, it needs to be taken out of things like the various social games that we play with eachother authority needs to be what is. Period. If you can demonstrate that, well then obviously you are right. Doug: As simple as it is, "It is what it is." that is the basic rule to go by. If you can't prove it, then don't say it. Don't "think" or whatever, do the scientific research, do the analysis, do what you gotta do to bring the proof to the table to support your claim, and then we can go from there. Neil: That's why I think that... go ahead Peter. Peter: I was just going to say, it seems so obvious, doesn't it? It seems so obvious and you look around, and you say, "Oh, we have to be using reason right, we are actually making educated decisions in the actions that we do, right?" But no, we're not. We are based on a folk way of social operation that is based on moral distortions and again evolutionary baggage, and educated people really tend to think that there's reason behind the decisions of government and there's not. There's self-serving, nonsensical attributes that really only benefit a select few and have no long term orientation whatsoever. One comment that I'd like to repeat, or singular statement that I'd like everyone to take away is that, We want to move away from social theory and into physical science. Society is a physical entity. It is not a conglomerate of human needs and wants. If we want a society to work, it has to be from a stand point of a near empirical association, meaning, it has to be created on actual reason and actual operation that actually relates to something, as I denoted before. So I just want to say that again, we want to get away from social theory and into the realm of physical science, because society is a technical creation. Neil: That's actually what I was going to get into, and this is something that we covered a lot on the show I did with Ben Stuart. Because he talked about how there are a lot of people who believe that they are free, but they are not. Because they are not mentally free. That doesn't just mean having the right to say "I'll do whatever I want," It's about being free of ego problems it's about being free of manipulation, it's about being free of having any wool over your eyes. That's what makes you really free, and that's the kind of stuff that we're talking about here. We are not talking about taking freedom away from you, We are talking about suggesting that you clear out your head, so you can make your own decisions. Peter: Or, I'll do you one further, just to bring one more level to this, because I completely relate to what you are stating, but on another level, we're not free, and no one's free. And it's time that we understand that we are bound by the natural order. The illusion of freedom, regardless of how much I believe I can walk on the wall that's sitting next to me, I can't do it. The law of gravity says no. The law of gravity is a dictatorship in a sense. So freedom can't be taken too far where it becomes this poetic idea. But I think you understand that, obviously I know you understand that, but simultaneously were not free, and also, our thought processes are also not free-will oriented. They are contrived from the environments that we are existing in in the exact moment that we are in, and the environments that have culminated us. So, simultaneously, it's a form of paradox, to be open, but also to recognize that you are intrinsically conditioned. And it's a very very difficult state of consciousness to get your head around that. Doug: Yeah, you're only as free as nature allows. You know, you're not free to not eat for a month and survive. You will die of starvation. And after that, when people say "Well, I'm free", well then stop working and go with your family to the Bahamas for a month and live a great month. "We'll I can't do that," Aha! How free do you really think you are? You're not as free as you think you are, you are as free as you can afford. And you are as free as you're allowed to be, based on the systems that constrain you, so the best thing to do is to develop systems that relieve that constraint, but still of course obey nature, because nature is a fickle beast that will smack you down if you try to go too hard. Peter: We could either align with the natural processes that we learn about, and give up our values that are erroneous, or later proven incorrect, or we can suffer the consequences. And unfortunately, humanity is on pace for sufferings from tremendous consequences unless a tremendous consciousness shift occurs. People have to get educated very quickly before these new scientific advents come to fruition. Because I'm really fearful and I mean this literally, what is in store for the future, once these incredibly powerful scientific energy oriented advents that I mentioned earlier come into fruition. If we're not mature enough, then again it's going to be terrifying what will happen. Neil: That's correct. And basically to finish kind of a point that I was bringing up earlier. We were discussing the issue of people not understanding the true nature of freedom. There are so many things that go into what opinions they have. As Jacque says, you know, you've heard that everyone should have a right to their own opinion, and he states that that is very dangerous. He doesn't say that you don't have a right to your opinion, but he states that it's dangerous because people do so many stupid things in the name of opinion. You don't apply the scientific method to your general thinking and it can cause all sorts of damage. Religion is an excellent example of the biggest opinion you'll ever see. If it's not provable, then it should not be in anyway ever used as a justification to be pushing people around. If you can't prove that there's some entity that's going to burn these children in fire if they're not baptized, then there's no reason you should have the authority to push anybody into baptizing their children. Theocracy is a huge example of an opinion ruled government. Because all religion really, it isn't provable by it's nature. So, technically I suppose the atheist could kind of prove theirs, but the point is though that these are examples of how opinions can get haywire. And they're extreme examples, but you use the extreme ones just so people kind of know what to look for. Peter: Oh, well hence the rhetoric of faith. Faith is the ultimate excuse. "Oh you don't believe? You don't see it? You just have to have faith." And the ultimate scapegoat and refusal of thought is the disposition of faith. Doug: And that's also a wonderful attack used by those very same people against scientists who then say, "Well you have faith in your science." I then say, "Well, no, I guess you could say I have faith in the scientific process, but guess what? but guess what, that scientific process brings forth proof. So I have faith in proof. Okay, I'll take that one." Neil: That's actually something I dealt with in one of the other chat rooms I had because it's linked to a network that has a lot of libertarians in it. And they were suggesting that science itself is a religion. I wanted to know what you thought about that Doug. Doug: Well I think I just kind of covered it. It's not. Oh, what's the guy's name.. Tim Minchin. He's a comedian from Australia. He has a 9 minute beach poem that's extremely funny, and if anybody can look him up on YouTube, it's called Storm. And one of the lines in here, in his thing, I'm going to paraphrase because I'm probably not going to get this exactly right. Science, no what is it... Religion is faith based on lack of observation of proof, where as science will mold and change it's opinion, based on what is observed. Science changes it's mind as it acquires new information. It's one of the things I said in my Switzerland lecture. At the very end. Science is constantly trying to punch it's own ideas in the mouth. For the hope that maybe, they'll break it, and come up with something even better and new. We are constantly challenging gravity We are constantly challenging these theories that have been around for centuries, with the sole purpose of trying to make sure that we either A) have it right for now, you know, a constant verification process, or with the hope of actually breaking it, so that we come up with a better truth for now. But it's always the truth for now. Once we've learned something new or come up with a new idea, then we adjust it. Religion is the complete opposite. You will believe this without any observation or proof required. And that never changes. This is what it always is, in-spite of what you learn in the future. So they are catastrophically different in their entire way of being. Between religion and science. So no, science isn't a religion because they are diametrically opposed to eachother as far as how they are practiced. Peter: I would just also add, I would agree of course. What I respond is, okay, what has religion produced? I can go through my home and find thousands of items that science has culminated from our computers, to our infrastructure, of course to our transportation systems, everything that is around us. Everything is a culmination of science. What has religion produced? Can you give me anything tangible that religion has produced, except a convoluted sense of emotional sanctity that is utterly contrived. So there's nothing physically responsive from religion. And that's an easy way to shut people up really quickly because, obviously science produces everything. Even the most religiously minded people pull out their cell phone, they don't even realize that this is science Science is what saves their lives science is the medical establishment. Well, not the medical establishment, that's a whole different thing, Science is the medical concepts, science is the ability to cure disease, that's a great way to approach how to deal with those that try to make it even, like "Ooh science and religion are the same thing." Far from it. Doug: Just ask Galileo how well that worked up for him. Neil: [laughs] I use that example all the time. You know... but I am sure those people, I mean I am sure all those people in there were very stubborn in their opinions and they probably went to their graves far more satisfied in knowing that they put that evil man, who tried to bring rational logic to them. Doug: How is that the Earth not be the center of everything, right? Peter: It's the ultimate example, isn't it? It's always great to bring up the Galileo example, because all around us, the exact same phenomenon is in existence. There are all sorts of concepts that are put forward based on moral assumptions or bad science that will have to be overcome in the future.

Video Details

Duration: 2 hours and 28 seconds
Country: Chile
Language: English
Genre: None
Producer: http://v-radio.org/
Director: http://v-radio.org/
Views: 265
Posted by: zchile on Sep 18, 2010

No opinions. Arrive at conclusions using the Scientific Method with Peter Joseph and Doug Mallette!

http://v-radio.org/

Caption and Translate

    Sign In/Register for Dotsub above to caption this video.