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

Peter Joseph - Arriving at a Resource Based Economy - London Z-Day, 2011

0 (0 Likes / 0 Dislikes)
  • Embed Video

  • Embed normal player Copy to Clipboard
  • Embed a smaller player Copy to Clipboard
  • Advanced Embedding Options
  • Embed Video With Transcription

  • Embed with transcription beside video Copy to Clipboard
  • Embed with transcription below video Copy to Clipboard
  • Embed transcript

  • Embed transcript in:
    Copy to Clipboard
  • Invite a user to Dotsub
A Resource-Based Economy in its working state is really quite simple deceptively simple given the complexity, imbalance confusion and uncertainty of the monetary-market system that we all endure today: a method I will point out as I go along that is completely decoupled from the natural world, from human needs. It exists as a mere abstraction floating in the air. In Part Three: Objections and Projections which will hopefully be a little bit fun I will touch upon some of the more common criticisms of this direction along with what we, those of us that identify with this in a very sincere way, are likely to expect as this direction gains more attention across the world. I think it's really important we come to terms with the inevitable hostility that arises when we broach the deep-seeded subjects that we do. It's important to remember that we are all victims of culture as has been pointed out by previous speakers and while many people are indeed coming to terms with the growing social problems and do see the Zeitgeist Movement, the Venus Project and the Resource-Based Economy as a viable solution, there are also many that have a very powerful identification with the current model and in all seriousness, view our work as an extreme threat to their identity, and it's something that unfortunately I think will grow. [applause] You're applauding that? You're funny. Then in Part Four, I will talk briefly about the transition something that's also been alluded to very well. I come at it from a similar angle although a little more general. The complexity and lack of predictability it holds is often illusive to those that immediately hear about this information and ask the immediate question "How do we do it?" Changing the world is not easy especially when the concept presented is probably the most radical social shift this species has ever faced or considered. But this is why we're here. The core interest of the Zeitgeist Movement is... The defining interest is to put our heads together to work together, to figure out how to actually get this done. That's why we're here. If anyone, by the way, is simply waiting for me to tell them what to do or anyone else to guide their way, sorry you're going to be disappointed. The Zeitgeist Movement is not a follow-the-leader movement. The only way this movement will work is if each one of you in this audience each one of you listening to this webcast or viewing this event archive in the future, sees the merit of this and is prepared to take the time and sacrifice to become an expert on this material and be able to transmit it to your fellowman in a fluid way. [applause] Thank you. I've ended two of my previous films with "The Revolution is now" and I want to clarify: The Revolution is a revolution of thought. It's a revolution of creativity, of ingenuity, a revolution of consciousness. I want to make it very, very clear that this is an information-based movement. It's an enlightenment of understanding what can be if we cared enough. Part One: A Self-Generating Model A wise man once said "The most profound understandings tend to be the most obvious, yet overlooked." I want everyone to keep that in mind as I run down the following section for as elementary as what I'm about to point out may seem these issues are far from being given the relevance they deserve. You know that 'of course mentality'. Those who say that tend to not understand what you are saying. Natural Law: A natural law is a property of what we call nature or the whole of the physical phenomenon around us to which we are symbiotically connected. Classic example is the law of gravity. [It] doesn't matter how much faith I have to believe I can jump up right now and dance on the ceiling. The law of gravity simply won't allow it. Since the effects of gravity are also measurable and predictable becoming a tool, this knowledge becomes the basis of inference which we use to make more accurate decisions. Once this law was discovered, all sorts of possibilities began to emerge and the world became a little bit more intelligent about what was possible and what wasn't, when it comes a phenomenon related to it. It builds up upon... We build upon natural law. As another example, before the germ basis of disease was discovered by Louis Pasteur, there were many ineffective and outright dangerous treatments for human sickness (as anyone who studies medical history will know) and we look back at these strange suspicious and often superstitious methods and wonder, how could we possibly have been so misinformed? Yet, we seldom recognize this trend as a universal and how it applies to us today. Most rarely consider that many of our current modern practices might be in the same boat to be looked back upon by future human societies which will wonder "What the hell were they thinking? Didn't they see the natural law referent for that issue?" Etcetera. The point here is that the evolution of scientific discoveries discoveries which always originate from feedback from the natural world, constantly refine our understandings (if we're open to receive it, which is a conversation in and of itself). It creates dependable, testable reference that we can use to assist in our reasoning about the problems solutions or even invention. The process of transfer or reason from a given law to an extrapolated conclusion is called inferential logic as if anyone's ever studied these things in college. Nearly every man-made thing you see in the modern world is essentially a product of this reasoning. Everything. However there is a one area of human life which we all have to admit goes virtually untouched by the natural law 'reference' and the extrapolation of this reasoning and that is our Social System. Somehow human organization is excluded here. For some reason the social arrangement that we utilize goes untouched as evolution continues as information. It exists as one of the most dated practices of organization I think we have left. I can break off into many different areas from this point in regard to how provably ineffective and archaic the whole of human social management is conducted from our prison systems to the banking oligarchs that we blindly accept to the grand distortion that I literally could talk for hours on end and if you hadn't seen my prior presentations, 'Social Pathology' I strongly suggest them, but that's not the point of what this presentation is about because I want to hone in. I want to narrow it down to one thing and that is universal human needs. Many, throughout modern history, have been trying to find a universal distinction for what we call human nature a very open word these days used almost flagrantly by the population. The question becomes "What traits are universal across the whole of the human species?" You really can't define human nature without that essentially being the case. Rather than speculate, which is what the great majority of public does (and I'm going to talk about it later as an argument that moves against us. People often bring this up.) let's actually think about what we actually know. Human nature in a general sense is at least a set of immutable human needs that run through the species without exception. Needs which not only govern our physical health (which is the first thing most people think of when they think of a human need such as food) but can actually also trigger different predictable behavioral and physiological tendencies that are quite elusive in the organism that are not readily apparent in the sense of causality that we typically think of. Furthermore, it isn't just those needs must be met in a traditional 'input' sense. There's also the very real need for all of us to have protection against other forms of stimulus that can corrupt and distort us. As will be touched upon in a moment, certain environmental or social stressors for example, can create profound yet initially unnoticed consequences in human development and it's a very misunderstood and underappreciated fact. Needless to say, if I don't get proper nutrition: water, air I will cease to exist over time. If I'm exposed to substances that are chemically toxic to my biology, such as ingesting mercury I will likely get very sick or have permanent brain damage. If I suffer serious vitamin deficiency as a child there's a predictable detrimental outcome for my personal health such as stunted growth or immunity deficiencies. Human needs do not stop at that basic level. Humans are bio-psychosocial organisms meaning we are affected by our environment, symbiotically in very subtle and complex ways. and before I continue... Who's water is this? It's mine? Beautiful. (Audience member) It's all ours. [applause] For instance if a mother in the late stages of pregnancy suffers extreme emotional stress flooding her system with cortisol (a stress hormone) the nervous system of that child could be predictably compromised in a negative way for the rest of his or her life for the fetus is in a stage of learning about what the world actually is. It's a natural evolutionary adaptability of the growing organism and it's extremely important at the earliest stages, including in utero. This goes through infancy and early childhood as well: a critical developmental period where the organism is literally being programmed adapted to the possible nature of the world they exist in an impression which has been found to carry again for the entire life of that person in certain ways. If that critical period is met with severe negative stress (suffering, pain, abuse) that child's development as we all know intuitively could develop into predictable tendencies of behavior from what science has been able to teach us propensities such as addictions and violence in later life. The point here with respect to human need is that the physical, mental and emotional health of a person can no longer be considered an isolated temporal affair. We are socially and environmentally connected and in an extremely real way, multifaceted. The historical absolute notion of freewill (which was touched upon earlier) a blanket assumption which is at the core of our legal system can only be a myth when this understanding is observed. While genetics has its obvious place (which I will touch upon a little bit later) there is little denying now that the variation that we see in human health, disease and human behavior appears to be significantly the result of our social and environmental conditioning, highlights through human needs being met or not being met. While it's obvious that there's cultural conditioning happening when it comes to our bare needs and the spectrum of those it's accentuated when those impressions are met or not met when we do not get what we need or we are imposed upon by something that we should not be imposed upon. The life-cycle itself (the pre-programming, pre-learning we have as an organism) has throughout the cycle different responses to those needs. Naturally the younger you are, the more the effect will pertain and continue for the rest of your life the more severe the effect. The problem of course is that there is a overall lack of acknowledgment of the bio-psychosocial context of human need and its profound effect on us. It goes essentially unnoticed overall by our educational system the prison system, not to mention its contrast to a competitive economic world driven by a mentality of independence and self-interest. I would even go so far to say that the core idea of being responsible and caring towards each other or even the environment on many levels, is actually held in hostility and contempt by many that have been conditioned by the current model. Little in the world we have created today seems to reflect these very real fundamental needs. They are denied by the social institution. The bottom line here is that if we as a society actually care about the well-being of each other and the symbiotic natural law aspects that create and reinforce that progressive state we are faced with an immutable social imperative. Across the entire spectrum of what we consider public health today we now see long-term increases overall in cancer personality disorders, poverty, familial deprivation crime, depression, suicides, addiction, violence, self-harm kids mutilating themselves, obesity and many other medical, psychological and anti-social signposts of an out-of-balance society. Something clearly is very, very wrong. Returning to my basic point, the core referent of any social system is the human being and its evolutionarily defined immutable, pre-learned, need-requirements to develop properly survive, maintain good health and prosper. To meet those needs, it becomes a given to have proper management of the Earth's resources and intelligent societal organization to make sure that the bio-psychosocial elements (the inter-connectivity) is also designed to support us in all the complexity that pertains to it. Anything less, frankly, is really negligence. In the words of Jacque Fresco "You can't just build a society without having access to the necessities of life so when I use the term comprehensive systems approach I'm talking about doing an inventory of the area first and determining what that area can supply. Not just an architectural approach, not just a design approach but that the design must be based upon all the requirements to enhance human life. And that's what I mean by integrated way of thinking: food, clothing, shelter, warmth, love. All those things are necessary. If you deprive people of any of them, you have a lesser human being less capable of functioning." In the end, public health, in the broad view is the ultimate measure of the performance of any social system along with the intelligent management of the earth which provides the core resources we need coupled with social conditions; for example, reduced negative stress. That's paramount to a healthy society. The monetary market system on the other hand: the governing socio-economic paradigm of our time which is based entirely around the mere arbitrary movement of money not the advancement of public health or environmental sustainability as it conflates needs with wants and consumption with progress shows its true hand when we realize that both human health and the environment which we inhabit are provably in decline. You can take all the monetary economic theories as brilliant and sophisticated as they may sound on paper and their grand loaded rhetoric of supposed freedom and democracy and simply compare those ideals to what is actually happening today. There's no contest. If there was one word to me which summarizes the current social economic paradigm, it would be 'inefficient'. The monetary market system simply has no direct physical reference for any decision since the entire model is based on the irrational scientifically empty whims of monetary exchange and often fictional demand. No overarching consideration for the inter-connectivity inherent in the world you see around you. No structural interest to officially meet the spectrum of human needs and make sure the integrity of each human is sound, regardless of the adverse consequences both personally and socially when that is denied. No consideration for the resources which allow for our survival and fulfill our needs. No consideration for the natural orders of balance at all. It is virtually baseless in the light of governing natural law and its demands and restrictions which are immutable. And the world you see around you is proof of that. A Resource-Based Economy, on the other hand, is very different and this brings us to Part 2: Economic Components Defined. A Resource-Based Economy is a direct response to natural law inferentially derived to figure out how to best meet the spectrum of human needs in the most efficient and sustainable way possible taking into account what actually supports us which is the symbiotic relationship of the earth and this delicate, providing biosphere we all share. From there, we are able to arrange society with very little need for human opinion if our collective goal is to maximize our sustainability human health and economic efficiency. This system is self-evident. The goal of a Resource-Based Economy is to achieve peak ecological sustainability and operational efficiency while meeting the spectrum of essential needs of every human being on earth without exception adapting itself to new scientific understandings in human and environmental discoveries as they arise and applying it immediately without any interference whatsoever once the scientific validity of those interests are proven. You notice in the prior statement about needs and wants... You'll notice I said the wants of every human being on earth... [Imitates VCR rewinding]...Let me start again. You'll notice I didn't say 'wants of every human on Earth'. It's important we understand a distinction between needs and wants. Wants are not based on natural law. Wants are social contrivances based on cultural influences fueled today by what we could call the infinite-growth paradigm which demands that everyone keep consuming at increasing rates in order for the growth economy to remain afloat. The result, in part, is that wants and needs are now conflated. It's a strategy. Some people have excessive purchasing power and can have anything they want while at the same time, the great majority now can not only achieve their temporal cultural-generated wants they can't even meet their basic human needs. If you have a system that conflates those two, suddenly no-one's responsible because it comes to a single entity, so we can accept the fact that a child dies every 4 seconds for no reason because of poverty. On a different level, I often get the question when I bring up this model "What if I want a 50-room mansion in a Resource-Based Economy? Where's my freedom to have that?" and I usually ask back "OK, well, what if I want a million-room mansion?" or perhaps "What I want the entire continent of Africa as my backyard?" At what point does this selfish, acquisitive, spoiled interest become blatantly irresponsible and socially offensive? Given we want to live on a finite planet and too, in a society which, regardless of the social system resources must be shared excessive, ostentatious living to me is really an anti-social form of neuroses groomed by a social system that needs constant demand and rewards, arbitrary status for the sake of that demand. It's a psychological scam in a way and if you think about it deeply it's actually a form of violence against humanity itself. Now before I run down... Thank you. [Applause] Before I run down the dominant economic considerations underlining the mechanics of a Resource-Based Economy I want to conclude this subject on needs and wants by pointing out the brilliance of Jacque Fresco's work with The Venus Project and his focus on advanced understandings and methods. The modern reality is that as long as we as a society understand the limits of the finite world we inhabit and respect each other as equals in the basic fundamental sense that we all have the right to live, we could not only meet the basic needs of every human on earth as I've described but given the incredible state of advanced technology today and its rate of change, we can easily enter into the realm of meeting the wants of the human population to agree (likely unimaginable) for 99% of the world today. We can create a vast material abundance if we simply updated and organized ourselves efficiently using modern understandings. Coming back to the model, I want to specifically isolate 3 aspects which are critical to responsible decision making for the sustainable fulfillment of human necessity: resource accounting, dynamic equilibrium and strategic design. Resource accounting: We live in a virtually closed planetary biosphere with a set of mostly finite resources at our disposal. Given this reality, the logic becomes quite clear as to our responsibility if we wish to allow our habitat to sustain itself for future generations. We must organize and account. (It's a no-brainer.) Proper economic resource allocation really cannot be made unless we have a clear understanding of what we have and where it is. Again it's no mystery yet bizarrely, it's not done at all today in any kind of concentrated way. But accounting is only the first step of this responsible Earth and social management I'm describing. We also need to track the rates of change and regeneration, if applicable. Again, it seems like a no-brainer doesn't it? It seems so obvious. Why aren't we doing it? Here we have what could be called 'Dynamic Equilibrium'. A classic example of this issue today is deforestation. Trees have a natural growth rate and we can't really alter that at least not now, and if our use of wood exceeds the natural regeneration rate of a particular area, we have a problem. It's the definition of unsustainability. Remember, that the monetary market model requires as much consumption as possible to keep the growing population employed and the economy operational. This is very simply by all definition complete ecocide. Remember, a core requirement of a true economy based on something tangible is to economize to be strategically efficient and conservative. Today we live in an 'anti-economy' to quote John McMurtry. This leads us to strategic design. Efficiently meeting the spectrum of human needs on a finite planet in a sustainable way, means resource allocation must be optimized strategically and conservatively. Today this is haphazardly done through arbitrary monetary rationalizations. It is about what could be afforded by the producer or the consumer not what the most efficient strategic use actually is not to mention the issue of longevity of a given good and the method to be used for its eventual breakdown, the recycling. None of that is considered in the initial design of anything for as I've mentioned prior, it's all about constant turnover. Remember, an economy is about increase and efficiency at all times. It's about doing what is most scientifically correct not what some company can afford in order to remain competitive in the market system. We need strategic allocation and design as derived from proven technical parameters that assure maximum efficiency and sustainability. Anything less is just absolute negligence when you really sit down and think about it. It's beyond depressing and enraging when you see what's actually occurring. Resource Accounting, Dynamic Equilibrium, Strategic Design: This sets the basic underlay of the Resource-Based Economy Model. These core components are the basic orienters which take into account the natural law I just described from the standpoint of Earth and human systems which are the two component attributes in the broadest scheme that are essentially in consideration here. There's more obviously. There's environment and everything else but we are here to sustain ourselves. Symbiotically related, we have to sustain the planet and the entire ecosystem simultaneously, including the bees that pollinate the health of the oceans and everything else. Sometimes I've had an argument come against me: "This is too human-centric," which I thought was extremely interesting because people have so much sympathy for animals and everything else as they should but we have to understand that it's all worked in. It's all one big system. The extinctions spasms we see are detrimental to us depending on, obviously, what they are but everything that's happening is both natural but it's also interfered by what we're doing and the fact that we still have certain areas of the planet that have to do manual pollination because of the death of bees in certain regions is a truly horrifying and revealing notion regarding the state of affairs today. Let's continue the inference now. Building upon these 3 points we can then arrive at the following specific points and I'm going to make a jump here because of the time restrictions of this presentation. We need to move from a growth to a steady-state economy. 1. Dynamic Equilibrium cannot be maintained in a growth economy for constant growth is impossible on a finite planet. 2. We need a collaborative system, not a competitive one. Strategic design cannot be fulfilled when cost-efficiency is in play. The competitive system is wholly irresponsible and inefficient and I'm not even talking about the moral issue here. It's intrinsically anti-social and corrupt, I will admit that but it actually doesn't even work. 3. We need a planned system: A system designed to take into account resource allocation dynamic equilibrium and strategic design explicitly in a unified way, synergistically constructed. The dispersed, haphazard, free for all corporate system doesn't even come close and the lack of efficiency is simple unacceptable. We've been living as though we are on an finite planet. People have been groomed into this idea that we have infinite resources and as a natural consequence with what's recurring today with water, food, oil, energy issues this rude awakening is finally taking the world by storm or it certainly will very soon as time moves forward if nothing is done. 4. Automation is put before human labor on all possible levels. This falls under the component of strategic design. Not only do we need to design consumer goods to be as efficient as possible, the very design of the production methods utilized for those goods needs to be equally strategically efficient to maximize accuracy, conservation and output. Productivity, as I've described before, is now inverse to employment in most sectors studied which means it is socially irresponsible not to automate as much as we possibly can for it allows greater abundance and efficiency. Here's a chart of the G7 advanced, industrialized countries showing how employment in manufacturing has been dropping while manufacturing output has risen substantially. Mechanization is simply far too productive to be ignored. It is irresponsible not to employ mechanization in every possible economic sector at this point. 5. As was pointed out earlier in a presentation, I'll reiterate this: We move from property to access and the removal of the monetary exchange. I'm a filmmaker and I have two closets jam-packed full of film equipment that I'll maybe use perhaps fully once a year at best so I have to hoard all of this stuff. I would prefer not to have it at all and rent it but in this system, I lose money in the long run. It's detrimental and inefficient economically due to the repeated costs and no resale possibility or investment. In order to be economically responsible, which we are all forced to be I have to store it in my apartment. I would prefer not to have to do that at all. In a Resource-Based Economy, there's no such thing as investment relative value, or the like. I could simply acquire my cameras from the access facility, use them, return them, like a library. It'd be beautiful, and if you extend this idea to the whole of the goods sector the realization is that we can actually reduce production and the use of resources because they are being spread around while counter intuitively, simultaneously enabling more access to the population when they need it. I hope everyone gets that. Strategic access is incredible because it's enabling more people to have more access with less resources consumed. I know it's very difficult to think about how a property-less society would work from a protectionist standpoint, given the world we live in today. No one is going to steal your car if they know they can't resell it or if they gain access to it themselves. People often forget why so-called criminal behavior occurs. There's reasons and those reasons can be resolved. The system itself that we want to create here is simply designed to meet those needs. That's what an economy is. That's what it does. Money is no longer needed in a world that has an access abundance and a population that actually understands what it means to live in a society where humans have to share the resources and it's a finite planet, to reiterate that point. Is it perfect? No, it's not a Utopia, and there are a series of holes that even I can punch into it, but that doesn't mean they're not resolvable. It would be cataclysmically better than anything we have now which is damaging ourselves and our environment and is on pace to getting worse exponentially. This brings us to Part 3: Objections and Projections I'm moving very quickly here. The preceding Resource-Based Economic Model treatment is a very compressed primer. Joe did a wonderful job of making a more extensive treatment of this which is similar to other lectures that have been given of course our Orientation Guide, so I'm really happy that a thorough explanation was given because if you are not familiar with it, this would be very truncated which it very much is. I really encourage everyone to follow up if you have questions with all the resources we have at One thing I do recommend as a counterpart to the human necessity angle, the build-up inferential logical approach that I just denoted, is a section called 'Project Earth' I did in a lecture called 'Where Are We Going?' while there's also a truncated version of that in the film 'Zeitgeist: Moving Forward'. Please know that there's much more to it than this but I hope the reasoning of what I've just described is coming through. My goal here in that description was to approach it from the angle of human need, which is something unfortunately we don't think about. Not just the human need aspect, but also the Systems Earth Approach the relationship between the two, and what we have to do to find balance maximum efficiency and balance to enable as much prosperity as possible. That's the equation. That's the calculation. My goal with Part 3 is to not only address very common criticisms (speculations that come up regarding what we've just described and all the other materials that we have) but also to use those points to further communicate some other important issues of a Resource-Based Economy. Before I begin, I think it's important to discuss something that's very important to me that I see rising in the community on the Internet, in my own personal experiences and interactions with people and that is the issue of violence in communication. Needless to say, we're all victims of culture on one level or another. That means we've been influenced and groomed into certain patterns of thought by our environment. And one of the cultural staples of modern society, unfortunately is the use of verbal violence to support one's position. Sadly, I don't know anyone who doesn't impulsively engage in this from time to time including myself. Calling people names might not seem as offensive as physical assault but the intent is essentially the same. The intent is to injure, to dehumanize and humiliate. Verbal violence is just a different degree of physical violence. In fact I'm a firm believer... I've done tremendous amount of study on the work of Martin Luther King, Gandhi and all of the initiators of the nonviolent communication movement. The goal of nonviolent communication is to try and leave the door open for others to enter if they choose to do so to unconditionally invite them to accept you regardless of how much they actually hate you and wish to injure you on whatever level. Easier said than done, but it really is the only effective method. I state this because the nature of our work in The Zeitgeist Movement has become a magnet and will continue to become a magnet for various levels of assault. Think about it: All of us that are identified with this work here, telling the world that what they're doing is wrong at the basic level of operation and understanding. We're here initiating global change that exceeds anything attempted in human history, as far as I know. A radical shift away from everything the majority of people on this planet have come to identify with. Hostility is not only expected, it's inevitable and it's very important that we all be prepared for this intellectually and emotionally and have great patience and understanding and know how to behave accurately. [applause] Now we always have a lot of seriousness in the discussions (naturally seriousness is important, it's where we are) but I've tried to make this a little bit more relaxed in my presentation of the critics of a Resource-Based Economy. First of all, about 99% of the time, the critics of this system approach it from the standpoint of prior surface associations from history. In fact the greatest phrase I've ever heard as of yet was someone who referred to it as, 'Marxism with robots'. Now I'm not blind. [What is it?] That's Tiny, the communist robot. He's a good guy. I'm not blind I see the obvious surface associations with historically proposed communism but as I have alluded to in a truncated fashion the train of thought that arrives at a Resource-Based Economy is self-evident. Those that use this rhetoric often presented as though we are building upon those early ideas. Well, no. Communism, in whatever form, might not have ever existed and it wouldn't change anything as to the inferential logic that arrives at a Resource-Based Economy. Natural Law is Natural Law. Human needs are human needs and a finite planet is a finite planet. The entire argument is worthless, does nothing but waste time and I recommend the avoidance of that debate unless you want to bring up what I just described. If you pay close attention the same people that tend to impose their Communist Socialist, Marxist label upon us, are also the ones that rarely ever address the core foundational reasoning of the model that we're talking about. They never talk about it and they also never talk about the failing social structure. They ignore all of it and just look at the surface appearance the cover of the book that they recognize, the projection that they manifest because of their conditioning. Next we have a unique one but it's become much more prominent. I hear more than I care to admit and that is the feared 're-education'. Since we speak about the need for people to shift their values into something that is more aligned with Natural Law and show the reasoning for it, suddenly we are just like the early totalitarian communists who seek to put people in forced 're-education camps' so they can be brainwashed into following the social system. Actually anytime any known idea is overturned by new information such as when Galileo informed the Catholic Church that the earth was not the center of the universe or solar system re-education had commenced. The whole evolution of knowledge is the constant process of yes, re-education, updating current beliefs. This is self-evident but I'd like to make this very clear because I am, frankly, tired of hearing it. This is an associative attack ultimately, just like the communist one. It's people that are really trying to pull an emotional reaction out of others to stop their critical thought to really investigate what we're talking about. So "Communism, oh they support re-education!" This is a growing phenomenon, both in sub-culture and into pseudo mainstream attacks that I've seen on myself the The Venus Project and the Movement. Then we have the moody outburst: "What if I don't want to live in your society?" Well, then don't. Just as arrangements exist for sub-cultures today who reject modern life in the future, equally as viable conditions can be met. If a group wants to break off and go play their little monopoly game somewhere, go ahead. I have a hard time believing, frankly, that once this system is set in motion and the fruits of its efficiency are seen by everyone, not to mention the true freedom people will have, which would be unlike anything the world has ever seen once the life-wasting, redundant labor for income system is removed. And then we have our cherished democracy. What about democracy in a Resource-Based Economy? What exactly are you expecting? Wading into some voting booth every couple of years like a mind-slave pushing a button for a candidate you have zero control over once elected? When you step back... You can hear the irritation in my voice because in my sheer honest opinion I can't believe it's still around, that we're still doing that... The real election of relevance is not the election of people. That is a dated, bizarre notion that we think... It's a give-in to a power system. We're enabling a power system of control, giving literally as this cartoon depicts the freedom to elect our dictators because we have no control over anything they do once they're elected and then a couple of years go by... "Oh, maybe we can remove them..." Real election of relevance is not the election of people. It's the election of ideas. It's creating the actual system of interaction where new ideas can be submitted by everyone and they are technically evaluated for their relevance and possibility. Please see The Orientation Guide that we have in for the proposed central database program an extrapolation of modern A.I. understandings. It sounds fanciful. It sounds like science fiction but these realities are coming to fruition very quickly and decision-making processes, the digestion of information even through our crude language, is becoming viable through automated systems. It would mediate our human interaction and evaluate proposals objectively as opposed to a political party with lobbyist influences that might see your idea as viable in a scientific sense but because of their influence they will override it which happens on a daily basis I probably shouldn't have to even explain that. OK, and then we have "Collectivism doesn't work", and this is a very common one. "Collectivism just doesn't work." If the core basis of collectivism and its foundational definition... What is it, really? It's simply a group of people working together for their common good as a whole. If this wasn't working we wouldn't have business we wouldn't have the military, we wouldn't have sports teams we wouldn't have people working in any group effort whatsoever. As far as using the model of a collective as the basis of a social system which is a very large extreme of such an idea which has never really been seriously tried people throw out the collectivist notion as though historically in the early communist states that these were true collectivist societies. No, they were not. They were always dictatorships by design: autocratic, which is not collective. A real collective is simply society working together as a team like a family. Imagine that! And the last one for this section my favorite "It's against human nature!" We are simply unable to work together on a large scale because of our evolutionarily embedded self-interest. No hope. We're stuck. Everyone go home. To this day, I'm amazed at how many people I run into with no education on the matter whatsoever not opening one book that throw out the human nature argument as the immutable force that will never allow any type of community to come to fruition, especially a Resource-Based Economy. Just recently I read an article that was produced by the John Burt Society which is a right wing anti-communist group. At the very last paragraph of this bashing of Zeitgeist and The Venus Project: "Well, Jacque Fresco and his fantasies are nice and cute but unfortunately human nature won't allow it." I can assure you that this guy has never done anything to research what that actually means. It's the last bastion of those who have nothing else to say in defense to support their indoctrination. [applause] The ultimate question to delve into is: "Is it against human nature to cooperate?" That's the central question. It certainly seems like that if you take the narrow view of history on the surface level, and you look at the tremendous divisions and conflicts throughout time. We see endless series of wars, genocides, conquests severe competitive tendencies, power abuses and given that's the pattern we recognize historically and that we see this in our history books with no real background as to the foundation of why that occurred it's easy to assume that must just be human nature: "It's just the way we are. Forget the environment. That's our programming." And that's essentially the core argument: If it's historically recurring it must be human nature. However we do see (and this is what's ignored) that human beings do cooperate extremely well in certain environments. As much as I don't like the military, it's a collective. It is a unified system working together. It is a collaborative system. They train and work together and they do so very well. Granted they are competing against a common enemy so there's the division but cooperation is existing, nevertheless, even if it's isolated. I had a conversation with a behavioral biologist at Stanford University, and he made a very unique point to me regarding the subject of self-interest and the 'us against them' pattern that exists as he's seen it through almost all primate species including ourselves. It appears that if the human species is very different in its 'us against them' issue while it's concurrent, while it exists (obviously the pattern exists) the malleability of who the 'them' is and who the 'us' is, is almost as arbitrary as anything else. On a dime we can turn the other cheek and find a new enemy. Who is to say that the enemy has to be another person or group? The conditions might simply be dictating that due to the scarcity of the environment perhaps which is probably the reality. What if the human species came together to move against other enemies, perhaps true threats to the survival of the species as a whole which, as we've seen in Japan are natural disasters and diseases. Why can't that be the 'them' of the human species and we be the 'us'. [applause] At the end of the day, the entire thing is really about the environment and that is what navigates this. I have no problems I find no dichotomy in the understanding of human nature, with respect to us being able to collaborate because the patterns are all there. It's simply creating the conditions and the understanding to make it happen. There's a great deal I could have said on the nature versus nurture and the evolutionary psychology issue. The film that I released the first opening section, I think does a very good job to create a primer on some very important aspects. Part 4: Transition and The Movement The Transition itself from our current system into a Resource- Based Economy is a complex thing to consider with variables beyond our current foresight as has been alluded to by previous presenters. The central issue is awareness. If the public's consciousness can be expanded to understand and accept the incredible potential the future can hold, where poverty war, 95% of all crime mundane, repetitive, meaningless jobs would be eliminated that I feel they would be more likely to adjust their values expectations and associations accordingly. This data is coming on the heels now of a global economic ecological and dare I say 'spiritual' or 'confidence' collapse across the world and the underlying mechanism of these problems driven by the monetary market system's very mechanics and values that are generated to support it show no signs of stopping. I think we're going to see as I mentioned earlier an acceleration of these issues as time moves forward. I'm not going to expand on the different levels of social failure as I see it because it isn't scope of this program. In my lecture, 'Social Pathology' (which was done on Z-day 2009) I do a huge expansion of this if you want to understand the pending collapse, which deals with technological unemployment peak oil, resource depletion, water and food shortages that are pending because of failures of efficiency systemic global sovereign debt defaults and hyperinflation along with massive or the result of massive civil unrest As confidence continues to fail people become more alienated poverty increases and income disparity increases as the wealthy work to protect themselves and grab as much as they can because that is their reaction to these types of things. The worse it becomes, the worse it's going to get. I hate to say it that way but that is the natural unfolding as has been happening. We're faced with a massive uncertainty and there is no transition plan that I can explain to you that will hold up over time. What we do know is that we need to get programs going which will continue to get this information out there and spread the word and basically, fuel the movement. One program I hope to get going, is a Global Redesign Team and I've been briefly in conversation with The Venus Project about this and it's also affiliated with a prior online concept called 'From Earth to Venus' which is going to be... Essentially, we want to objectively consider how each area of the planet would be properly redesigned for maximal sustainability. If there are engineers in the movement, if there are city planners it's time to come together in a virtual sense understanding whatever we can to start to reconstruct this and show the world what can be done. And then have an annual presentation very much like Z-Day but of a more focused context where the work would be presented to the world to say: "We've just designed the entire North American system. Look how efficient that is." And hopefully leaders, governments and people in business will come to terms with the need for this type of understanding and it will take hold. In a transitional sense that might be a good starting point where they come to these conferences and they learn big presentations about how to literally redesign the society to benefit us in the most sustainable way possible. We have this thing called the G-20... We need the Z-20 or the Z-200 [applause] to begin to show those people and the world what a real economy actually is. [applause] Our current goal in this phase is critical mass unifying the world to understand what actually constitutes our survival and prosperity as we discussed and how the current model is really injuring everyone, regardless of their wealth. The stress relationships are inescapable and are not necessary, even for the uberly rich. As of now, we have over a thousand chapters in 70 countries over the span of essentially two years. We have a proven as a Movement in an almost unprecedented sense with very little financial support that we are able to organize and mobilize across borders languages, even religions. And this third annual Zeitgeist Day event with hundreds of events across the world, show the power of influence the possibility, the power of our cooperation. 3rd Zeitgeist Day, hundreds of events across the world we show amazing power of collaboration amazing group effort, something that really is unprecedented. We have the ability to harness a global movement something that I think many people have strived for but have never been able to do, and we've done it in a very short period of time. We are in a transitional phase now unifying the world into an understanding that our very survival is contingent upon bridging the differences between cultures. There's nowhere to hide anymore. There's no place for the type of division that exists. It's literally unsustainable. Finding the empirical common ground that we all share through our fundamental needs is really that bridge and if we can come to terms with that and get the world to come together, we might actually have something we can call a civilization to be perfectly frank. In conclusion, I will end with my favorite quotes of all time: "The old appeals to racial, sexual, religious chauvinism to rabid nationalist fervor are beginning not to work. A new consciousness has been developed which sees the earth as a single organism and recognizes that an organism at war with itself is doomed." (Carl Sagan) We're one planet. Thank you [applause]

Video Details

Duration: 56 minutes and 59 seconds
Year: 2011
Country: United States
Language: English
Producer: TZM London
Director: TZM London
Views: 569
Posted by: ltiofficial on Jun 6, 2011

Peter Joseph - Arriving at a Resource Based Economy. London Z Day 2011, March 13th.

Note: This is LTI's 'internal working location' for this video, so please do not publicly pass around this URL. All completed and fully proofread 'official' translations can be found at the Repository location at, which we highly encourage you to embed &/or pass around.

To join/help with these translation efforts: (LTI Forum)

Caption and Translate

    Sign In/Register for Dotsub to translate this video.