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 - From Consequences to Solutions

0 (0 Likes / 0 Dislikes)
Put in the context of corruption, you know, you have corruption in our economic society, people often say 'Oh, you have all these corrupt politicians or corrupt corporations.' Corruption as a concept, in the relationship to the system just like a hard drive in your computer might corrupt, it means it has a particular manner of organization, both hardware and software something happens and it corrupts and it doesn't work properly or not at all. In the economic model we have corruption that says well: if a guy pulls out a gun and robs a convenience store he's not playing the game that we've established by our system, therefore he's corrupt. Now, the approach with the systems theory is to say, well, there isn't really a true economic model in existence on the planet today cause money and everything like that is a contrivance based on a traditional approach that is long outdated as i will talk about in this presentation. So where is the real system? The system is the planet. The system is the.... well, in greek, the definition of an economy is the 'management of a household' so this system is the household of the entire planet, its natural laws, its physical systems and we can only listen and adapt to that. And what we've learned through time, fortunately, is that a systems approach is the only way to go and that's pretty much the foundation of, you know, the social system that we advocate. We want to calculate society. Not have the whims of human opinion and traditional associations dictate which are almost notoriously wrong, well they are in fact always wrong as the knowledge continues to evolve. Anyway, I don't mean to ramble here, but i'm gonna jump on a bunch of those issues as we go along but if there's anything to make clear off the top of my head, it's that the current economic model we have today which i'm, again, going to talk about is a corruption. Its very foundation is corrupt, its structure is corrupt, every attribute of it that orients from it, that blossoms out of it is just an extension of that corruption and the government politicians and all the things that we talk and harp about, we see in the front page in newspapers are only extensions of that corruption It's a corrupt economic system because it's not actually related to planetary resources and the physical natural laws that govern our lives. So, if i haven't annoyed you already i've divided presentation into 3 sections, the first section is called 'The Organism of Knowledge' and this is basically how our culture evolves and tends to digest and filter information, you know based on biases and a few things i've already mentioned and the second section is 'System Consequences' as i've already alluded to, we live in a system, we organize systems around us and i'm going to take some of the most commonly cited concerns within our current model and expand on those to express an underlying structural source which is also an underlying structural psychology that unfortunately many do not recognize specifically how most of the major problems in the world today are actually coming from this flawed economic foundation and hence the behaviors of us that it continues to rewarded and reinforce that are actually detrimental. and then in section 3 i'm gonna briefly discuss a new train of thought which builds into what Jason was just speaking of which is a ground-up logic with respect to what we've come to understand in the modern day about what it means to relate, to be in harmony with the planet and the natural laws that actually govern us, that define us, really, and what will enable true sustainability and prosperity which are confirmly technical notions. Part 1: The Organism of Knowledge We live in a society that tends to judge the messenger, ever noticed that? Rather than take the data on its own merit... If i gave you guys a piece of paper and presented a series of ideas or a book uh... would you need to know who wrote that paper? who wrote those ideas to decide if you agree with it or not? This tendency is based on the assumption that we as individuals actually serve as sources for any ideas that we have or share, that we are truly original in anything that we talk about or communicate and that who we are or maybe our biases, our cultural sourcings somehow transcend the information itself when critically analysed against the benchmark of our scientific method of evaluation.. so people love to dismiss others for what they say, attack them personally but they fail often to just take the data on its own accord and analyze it against really what is the ultimate benchmark that we've come to understand for data, the scientific method and scientific reality. The key word here is causality, a common flaw to mass psychology today is how we think about the origin of things, when in fact we can find absolutely no beginning, and no end, when it comes to discovery invention or thought. Everything is just feeding in and out of itself interweaving. This emergence is a fairly new understanding to human History, i might add and should be no surprise that we share this superstitious view very often as you know, as people begin to continue to attack the messengers in fact you could say the same thing about the notion of evolution, as it's attacked by those who still believe in intelligent design or old religious traditional views uh... it's very convenient for us to assume point-by-point sources when it's much more complicated for us to actually think of the whole of evolution whole of the evolution of knowledge. So we have the unique tendency to personify and to categorize in very tight frameworks so again it should be no surprise should also be no surprise that you know, the attacks, especially if you're really radical such as the things that we talk about in the Zeitgeist Movement very foreign to many academics, and what they've been trained to promote and communicate uh... the attacks tend to go against the person and not the objective analysis against the scientific benchmark, i can't emphasize that enough. Put another way, human beings on his knowledge level are basically vehicles, if you will our brains absorb existing data and combine it with other data through our intellectual filters only to re-output it again or hence communicate it into the environment to others as information and others absorb, process and output again, and on and on it goes and as that process continues the knowledge itself actually evolves much like biological evolution does through time, processing through the environment of the 'group mind', if you will with our social communication and hence, educational accents, like this institution, keeping the process going. As a quick example, Albert Einstein did not discover or invent relativity by any technical sense of the distinction for him to have done so he would have had to invent the whole of mathematical inquiry since antiquity along with all the tools supporting provisions and everything else that would enable any conclusion of such to manifest. He was merely an extension of the work of others which of course now is continually extended even more so by the work of his well, successors, if you will. Therefore again, judging the messenger for their communication and their beliefs makes absolutely no sense. The only judgment that can possibly exist in this regard is with respect to the information itself and how it holds up to critical analysis again i hope that's clear. I say that because if you don't agree with something said here, you're not actually disagreeing with me you're disagreeing with the information, i am completely irrelevant. This might sound like a trivial point but if you actually take this to heart and really begin to look at the way you view the world to consider the group mind and the way you're inter-connected and what you share and the way we're all responsible in a certain sense for how information flows, for what information is out there, for even the actual actions of yourself and each other uh... you'll you'll change your view dramatically, you'll stop pointing fingers you'll stop projecting responsibility into the environment for social problems it's a very profound notion to realize that we're existing in this unity that's evolving knowledge simultaneously. Now, Part 2: System Consequences How did our current social economic system come to be and why do we have the growing problems we do now? I think the philosopher that Shar actually mentioned earlier, Jiddu Krishnamurti gave the best intuitive summation: 'The crisis is a crisis in consciousness, a crisis that cannot anymore except the old norms, the old patterns, the ancient traditions and considering what the world is now with all the misery, conflict, destructive brutality, aggression and so on.. men is still as he was: he's brutal, violent, aggressive, acquisitive, competitive and he has built a society along those lines'. It appears that there's a conflict occurring here, between our old, traditional, static world views and the resulting institutions that come from them and the emergent, ever-changing evolution of knowledge and awareness which, given enough time, has proven to continually alter and override everything that we think it's true, at any single point in History. Everything. In other words, we've created this traditional society long ago based on very limited information and due to the self-preserving mechanisms that are built into it by the way, which is a consequence of that limited information, and i could go on a long tangent about establishment structures self-preservation, the very nature of the profit system is self-preserving as opposed to emergent These institutions want to remain but i'm's for another conversation we have stubbornly kept these ideas in place for various reasons and such mechanisms in the face of an ever-quickening state of change that is violently disturbing the integrity of those old institutions and traditional approaches. The rate of change in human society long ago was very slow compared to what's happening today. The fundamental factor of social change, which is information and physical technology, knowledge and tools is now increasing exponentially almost outside of our control, as the organism of knowledge speeds up. With the effects of that change not only making completely obsolete many institutions that have appeared relevant, have appeared permanent in the past but also bringing to the surface completely unreconcilable inherent problems that simply went unnoticed before. Every dominant governing institution today, from politics to economics, to general philosophy has proven to have some seriously detrimental outdated and flawed attributes and the more they remain in the wake of these new understandings and abilities the more they will destabilize society, causing increased suffering. This isn't to say again, that the prior institutions did not fulfill a need at that point in time, they certainly did but we're blindly holding on to them as though they are relevent and applicable when they are definitively not. And this is the core of the psychological structural problem before i go into the more specifics traditional institutions fighting to maintain their self-preservation in an absolute clash against an unstoppable, emerging reality, the evolution of knowledge and what it means for us to actually relate to the environment and there are numerous examples i can give of this, one is technology and war back in the day, sticks and stones and catapults and all of that stuff had a very limited effect and you could have a distorted culture with a distorted value system believing in things like sovereignty you could have a culture that actually felt the need to protect themselves and saw no other route than to assume enemies over here and protect themselves and maintain their family or their culture or whatever identification they chose to but now it's a little bit different when the cold war occurred we had nuclear weapons, which today by standards of nanotechnology would be like a roman catapult, very soon. There are things that are happening now that will enable a level of destruction so vast that we can't have the types of values that we have, the outdated structures, the outdated sovereignties, it can't work or we will self-destruct, and it's already, almost happened obviously very recently in History. And that was primitive, i recommend everybody go home and google 'nanotechnology weaponry', and you'll be blown away by a what's on in-store in the military establishments and how dangerous it is for us to share the divisive notions at this point in human evolution. But i leave that there. We're gonna jump right now into 5 social problem categories by the way, this presentation is adapted from a presentation i did this weekend at Occupy Wall Street, in New York. And i was approaching this through, basically their grievances, many of the things that you hear in the news and media, and my goal with this was to show how all of his stuff comes back down to a root foundation which is a very structure of our economic system. So here are 5 social problem categories, we have wealth imbalance, which will deal of course with this class and absolute and relative poverty If you don't know what absolute and relative poverty is, absolute poverty is what you see with the billion people starving that are literally just dying off and relative poverty is what you see in the western world with homeless people, people that can survive so to speak, but they're not getting their needs met and they're very sick. Second section, public health: living standards, safety things like that Third session, labor: such as unemployment or even exploitation like sweatshop slavery And number 5, habitat and resource mismanagement, in other words pollution and depletion such as peak oil and things like that. All right, number 1: Wealth Imbalance; I think we all know the stats by now we have 1% of the world's population owning 40% of the planet's wealth we have 400 americans with more wealth than a 150 million combined put a different way, what i realized recently was that 50% of americans only have 2.5% of america's wealth, which i thought that was equally as dramatic On a different level, almost half of the world, 3 billion people now live on less than two dollars a day and one outta every two one out of every two children are impoverished 50% of all children are in fact impoverished on that level while in the wealthy america over 21% of children are actually below the poverty line now and uh... as an aside, if you research what the poverty line is, i believe it's 21 thousand dollars for a family of four try to live on 21 thousand dollars for a single individual and then think about the fact that the US puts that label, that line, as a family of four which is completely insane so you can extrapolate how what real poverty actually is if you do some calculations about living standards. And as such depressing stats go on and on, i would summarize this issue globally by saying that someone starves to death every 3.5 seconds on this planet! As Gandhi stated: 'the most deadly form of violence is poverty'. And the question is why? I would like to actually have two questions to support the 'why' factor: What are the factors that contribute to poverty and deprivation? And 2, does the existence of poverty and deprivation serve a beneficial role with respect to our current economic model? The common myth about poverty is that there's not a food, there's too many people and oh, our production methods just are not efficient enough apparently to meet the needs. Well, if anyone takes a moment, they can find that there's no evidence to support any of those, those conclusions. We have ever-increasing production efficiency, even with the old methods we're still using not, to mention the amazing methods that are on the horizon, and we already produce many more calories today which could be easily feed well over the current population. So the problem is not technical, the promise purely economic, and while poverty organizations continue to point out various effects that create poverty such as commodity prices or the national debts or austerity or economic decline or health care costs in the sense of relative poverty and job loss, etc. rarely are the very mechanics of our economic system brought into question. With regard to this second question not only does the system generate poverty and a growing wealth divide by its inherent mechanisms and internal logic it actually games advantage from that deprivation in order to perpetuate itself. Let me ask you all, who were the first labourers in the market exchange model, historically? Slaves! Slaves in the view of the market meant the ability to reduce costs for the producer. In modern terminology it's called cost efficiency. In order for competing producers to seek profit, acquire profit they must caught, excuse me, they must cut their costs by whatever means they can so they can be competitive. When you see sweatshop slavery in the world or illegal immigrants being exploited for labor or citizens like many of us in america buried in debt, trapped in low-paying jobs that firmly are not light without health insurance or any type of general social support often with the inability even attend an university, you are seeing the logic of the market model at its finest. The key word here is scarcity. The general scarcity of goods and resources means higher value less affordability and a general scarcity of income in labor means more demand. More deprivation and hence cheaper labor, thus exploitation. I hope that makes sense, put another way, the system would not be able to operate if any kind of basic balance with human needs being met. Scarcity is required to keep cost efficiency going and product value high. Two elements that continue to reinforce people's inability to get what they need. In the words of economist Marshall Sahlins: "The market industrial system institutes scarcity in a manner completely unparalleled and to a degree nowhere else approximated, where production and distribution are arranged through the behavior of prices, and all livelihoods depend on getting and spending. Insufficiency of material means becomes the explicit, calculable starting point of all economic activity." And while today, in the activist community many people again, as i addressed Occupy Wall St. they talk about the removal of debt, the removal of interest uh... more legislation to outlaw slave labor and create higher fixed wages for the world's people to get their basic needs, raising minimum wage... Theu don't seem to understand that the system as we know it would basically collapse if such measures were taken. Can some improvement be made? Yes, but the flawed root problem logic that i keep hinting to, still remains. Public Health: number 2 For the sake of this presentation let's talk about public health regarding physical health and mental health As far as physical health, have you ever noticed that you have to go out of your way and at increased expense to buy food that isn't poisoned with additives and hormones and preservatives and grotesque levels of fat and sugar that the idea good health is is almost a bad word, it's almost held in contempt by industry? I'm always amused when i go to a store and i see things like "green" or "natural" or "organic" as though there ever should have been anything else produced. I mean, we might as well just put "less poisonous" or "more poisonous".. "really poisonous". Cancer deaths have nothing but increased around the world and while people demand more testing of course, in the consumer culture for chemical agents and they demand more uh... more sanity uh...excuse me more clean production elements and all the like Still no one is actually complaining about the fact that the market system in its inherent interest to simply get more for less, to increase profits is the incentive source of nearly all the public health issues in this regard. I used to live in uh... in Bushwick Brooklyn, at a very poor neighborhood and in the grocery store there, i would often be behind people there were on food stamps now their limited financial ability coupled probably with the lack of education and they went there to buy nothing but Ramen Noodles and basically Pepsi every single day. That's all they fed on, they were poor and and they didn't know any better, but the poverty element is really a largest attribute. If you don't have the means to gain decent quality food, you know the rationale is obvious, i don't need to explain it but i couldn't believe it, i'd see a whole grocery carts full of the worst possible food processed you could find. So you can see how again, it's class perpetuation. The poor are not just the poor they're inhibited by all sorts of means that reduce their health both physical and mental and i'll talk in a moment about the work of Richard Wilkinson who did these exquisite studies on how the very nature of stratification is actually unhealthy for all of us and the more poor you are, the more that stress will generate all sorts of diseases both again physical and mental. But hey.. That's ok, right? Because lung cancer, diabetes treatment create jobs, they create economic growth, they create GDP I hope everyone firmly understands that from an economic perspective, sick people needing servicing are great! Think about it: There's nothing to gain economically by the resolution of any given problem on any level it is the maintaining and servicing of problems that underlies actual economic growth. As an aside, you might notice how market economists, when you engage them, they tend to justify this system with these blanket statements and often they'll say "oh, the market economy, it simply makes available services to those who need them in the free economy, demand and supply". So if you need your car's shocks replaced you just hire mechanic to do it, however you rarely hear them turn the other side on this, the view ignores the fact that the mechanic that replaces your shocks needs you to come and give them work and at what point in desperation of scarcity does such a person justifiy, say selling shaadi shocks which will wear out faster just so they can get more work? Now people immediately say, 'oh that's just immoral, that's unethical' but that is a truly relative notion here, for no producer is actually able to produce the 'best anything' in a market system because the cost-efficiency mechanism, that defines the nature of maintaining profitability in a competitive market simply cutting corners to make sure you produce something just affordable enough but not high quality enough where you lose market share because others are competing with you, i hope that makes sense, the very act of doing that introduces inferior products right off the bat even if they attempted to make the best they can't within the very dynamics of what the market system does, this computer i have right here will die approximately 3 years after i buy it. It's made all sorts of very cheap components, that are extremely faulty and it's an estimation game that they play to make sure...It's called 'intrinsic obsolescence', it's built-in to the market system everything produced by all corporate sources are inherently flawed and inferior the moment they're created because it is mathematically impossible in a market economy to produce the best you wouldn't be able to compete it'd be too expensive, because the nature of the system increases prices as values as the resource values increase so i can't reiterate that enough, so a mechanic engaging in what you'd call 'planned obsolescence' may do a poor job so you come back or giving you a poor, faulty product is just an extension of the very nature of what this system does inherently so where is the moral judgment there? Only a matter of degree This system thrives on the servicing of problems is my main point in this beyond that tangent. You don't want to solve problems, you want to keep them so, keep that in mind. This is about money, not health or sustainability. Coming to mental health. The amount of people on anti-depressants and anti-anxiety drugs seems to continue to rise as well why? The key word is 'stress' as most psychologists would point out, one way or another stress is a deadly killer and the fuel of most mental health problems we see driven by environmental conditions, even those studies on genetically induced mental health disorders are almost universally triggered by some type of stress response in the youth of the child or even in adulthood. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how as we all experience stress in our lives how we can create neurotic behavior, it can cause all sorts of shutdowns within our emotional spectrum it can make us erratic and it easily leads to depression, which i think probably everyone on the planet has experienced in one point or another. So we have these incredibly stressful societies that we've created based on the system and the survival itself really, if you think about it, in the larger context which i can't go into, we have created almost an idiotic stressful environment that isn't even necessary Since the market model at its roots is based on this imbalance it's based on stratification, it's based on scarcity which creates stress and then it creates mental health problems i, again, i can go on all lots of big tangents here, for example, absolute pressure, money worries are the number one cause of stress in general and of course, why wouldn't they be? Stats have been run since the beginning of this economic collapse and found a correlation with suicide rates in fact. People tend to value themselves also by their job and they lose their sense of value when they lose their job and there are a number of reports in the past two years of people who actually killed others, and their entire families, just because they lost their jobs is this really necessary? I mean, there might be inhibiting attributes built-in to the psychologies to begin with but the stress of the system is really pushing people to extremes. In a world where we can create in abundance of the necessities of life to provide a peace of mind for everyone everyone knowing that they don't have to starve and no one in their families is going to starve that isn't based on this cutthroat social darwinism based on a totally faulty traditional notion that there simply isn't enough to go around is this psychological consequence really necessary to endure? And that we have 'relative pressure', not the direct pressure of being broke or losing your job, but the relative pressure and this comes in the form of psycho-social stress as i alluded to earlier this is about stress that is caused by how people think about themselves and their status, which is a cultural notion, with respect to others. Enormous amount of data exists on this issue by a man named Richard Wilkinson and what he's found is that the larger the income gap between the people in a society the higher level of all sorts of debilitating mental and health disorders, not to mention violence and crime. Basically there's a form of stress that's emerged because we're such social organisms, we're deeply social, if there's anything you could say it's built-in to our human nature is we're deeply social. If you have a child that's born and that child is not touched that child will die, it doesn't matter if that child is fed, it doesn't matter if that child is in a good good home, so to speak, shelter If there's no contact with humans, the child will die It's built into us, we're social and this has manifested itself with the stratification attribute, where you can turn on the TV and see somebody with a 50 room mansion and 2 jets parked in their front lawn and you've been conditioned by your general culture that that's what success is and then you begin to feel stressed for that and it causes all sorts of neurotic behavior uh... science has found the bottom line in fact is that our class system, which is a natural byproduct, almost a defining attribute of our economic model, appears to be literally unhealthy by its very manifestation. This is again, traditional notions clashing with emergent knowledge people say to me 'oh you're against classes, you must be a marxist and a communist'. I say 'no, i'm against classes because it's scientifically unhealthy for a society to behave this way'. If you wanna live in a safe society with less murder rates, less mental health diseases, uh... basically less everything uh... that's negative, we have to get balance and equality and egalitarianism going It's a scientific reality. Number 3, Labor: It's understanding to me how many, especially in the Occupy movement as i was addressing earlier this weekend and across the world obviously with numerous uprisings and destabilizations. The labor issue is a focal point, where people are complaining to their governments to say, where are our jobs, you're not doing enough to give us jobs as though really governments have anything to do with that element of the market system, they're yelling to the wind. The first thing everyone needs to understand is that the only thing that has put any of us out of work in the broad view has been technology. Why? Because technology is increasingly becoming more cost-efficient for corporations. Some economists will argue and i get these arguments all the time, that technological progress works on both sides it replaces human labor on one side and it creates new labor through new mediums on the other and while that might have been true in the past before the exponential increase started to really accelerate technology is now leaving us in the dust. Our brains, our abilities and our learning processes are simply not fast enough to keep up with what is enabled now by this beautiful thing that we've created It really challenges the very basis of what we're doing. The more we mechanize the more productive we become. It's completely irrational for us not to be doing this. This means literally that it's time for us to grow out of the labor for income system as we know it, it's completely obsolete, it's not only becoming more and more inefficient, it simply isn't going to be able to keep the majority of people employed on this planet. And the fact that corporations will continue to mechanize again, for our coveted cost-efficiency, you can't win. Ray Kurzweil did a great stat, where he's talked about the exponential increase of application of technology and the dramatic cost reduction of this technology well a calculator, when it was first invented, i believe it was around 600 dollars a number of decades ago now you'd be lucky to even pay for one as you get them for free, so the question becomes, and this is the defense actually by most economists, they say: Oh, well the decrease in the cost of technology enables us to produce more hence create more with less cost but there's absolutely no one to one correlation that i found you can't assume in market environment that's based on profit, and maximization strategically by the way, that they are somehow going to be lenient and start to charge exactly less based on the proportion of what they gain through using technological applications, i hope that makes sense. It's completely irrational to think that way cause the motives are against it, but that's usually what economists say, and all i say is, well look around you, the only reason people are unemployed in this planet is because they've been replaced by technology, period. And i mean over the broad scheme of history, if we all wanna go back to being a grand farmer, i guarantee we will all be employed, do we really want to do that? Or on the other side of the spectrum, to continue my tangent, we could all go to Facebook, and get 'Facebook money' and we could all do little things on Facebook Is there where you want your new economy to be? These are the things i hear from economists, they say well, we're just gonna develop a whole new sector where it's all digital and the information, people are gonna sell and buy information, as though that's really necessary You know what i mean? Is that how you wanna live your life just to save this system? So, coming back to this there are only 3 things right now that will create more jobs in the broad scheme: One, we have to cut the workday so others can fill in which by the way was proposed during the Roosevelt administration in the great depression, and hideously opposed as he was called a 'socialist'. Two, we stop mechanization which by the way it was also proposed during the Roosevelt administration and they actually submitted a bill that wanted to stop invention which i thought was just the most hilarious thing ever or, as i just alluded to, we create a sea of completely arbitrary occupations and condition the culture to support them as relevant i don't know, like two things i recently, excuse me, two things that have recently come about, advertising and Wall Street, two utterly meaningless occupations that do nothing, create nothing, contribute nothing, and they actually support the opposite values that will continue sustainability and progress, yet Wall Street and Advertising are some of the biggest sectors, well industries, on the face of the Earth, as far as how much money they circulate and take in. So if that isn't a sign of where we're heading, i'm not sure what is. The bottom line, as far as i'm concerned, is that the labor for income system, which is the foundation of the market economy is becoming obsolete and we can either adapt and change this system, as this emergence unfolds, compensate for it or it's gonna simply collapse on itself, as far as things are going right now uh... the jobs are not coming back, i don't see them coming back, i have no idea how they're possibly going to come back uh... because everything moves against the application of human employment right now. Number 4, The Financial System: This is a short one, as we all know debt and interest are inventions rules of a game we have concocted for ourselves over time however the consequences of this game of course are extremely real as we play and the well-being of entire nations are now in question due to their existence. I'm not gonna go into all the bank bailouts stuff and the austerity measures or the fact that we charge interest on money to loan it that doesn't even exist in the money supply making a debt black hole if you will that is literally mathematically impossible to get out of i hope everyone here knows that, If you look at these maps of debt, that's why they're there... but my question to you is, which is a new one i'm posing how do you operate a market system without interest and debt? This is something that struck me recently when you think about the mechanics of this system, how can it work without interest and debt? If money isn't loaned at interest, how is it sold? How is the preservation of the market philosophy where everything is for sale preserved? Where is the exchange? If money isn't created out of debt where does the value come from, because that's really what the debt is it's a parallel value that's extracted. How do you buy money without money, aka debt, in other words I hear tons of people talk about this stuff about a system not based on debt and interest and it's no surprise that they won't tell you what their solution is because i've yet to see any solution that actually makes sense within the market system preserving what the ethos of the market system actually is, the free market. It seems that the debt itself is the value and interest is the gain, the profit, just like a table you buy has value and the markup of the seller gives you the profit, so i have absolutely no idea how that could work when people bring these things up to me It's structurally flawed uh... so those that wanna figure out other ways to do it, i'm open to suggestions. The only thing they really can do is debt forgiveness periodically, so you have the whole thing blow up as it's doing now, you forgive all debts and you wait, then it blows up again you fogive all debts and you wait... but is that really healthy? Number 5, Habitat and Resource Mismanagement: pollution, depletion.. This goes back to our infamous cost-efficiency mechanism again just as companies have an inherent need to cut corners to reduce costs in production the same logic applies to how it relates to the environment which it gains its materials to sell, not to mention the waste protocols and pollution, environmental neglect uh... that is ongoing, these are literally always based on saving money and while they might seem morally objectionable in the short term in these ethical arguments that keep coming up they are just extensions of the same motivation and i can give you all sorts of examples where pollution and depletion are being utilized without anyone thinking about the corruption, they just seem normal, since it's rewarded in this system and it saves you money it's going to be done in some form, no matter how many laws you make it's just a matter of degree. If you want to stop environmental abuse, you must make sure that there's no reinforcement for it, it's that simple That's how basic operant human conditioning works. The competitive market economy reinforces these things and there's simply no escape when people are competing, it's just gonna keep happening you can call it greed, which is a common term we hear, oh the 'greed' of this and that.. greed to not want to dispose of things correctly cause they wanna save money, but that is again, a degree of the same flaw, its not just greed, greed doesn't really exist in its own pocket It's just an exaggeration. An extreme of the very underlying psychology that's at work here. And finally we get to the crux of the whole issue, what defines our system? If you really think about it, we live in an anti-economy the word economy means 'management of a household', it means to be strategic in how we use our resources and take care of the habitat, it means we need to be conservative and limit waste is this what our system does? Last i checked the entire global economy was based on the need for constant consumption. The more turnover the better, the more goods bought, and used, and trashed, the better the entire basis of this system is consumption and the only reason that any oj you have a job right now is because somebody is consuming something that you're working with somewhere, whether it's a service, whether it's a good you produce in a factory there's nothing in the incentive built into the structure of our economic model that seeks to preserve or create the best long-lasting anything or resolve problems, to put it into a sentence: preservation, efficiency and sustainability are the enemies of the market system that we share. Part 3, A New Train of Thought: Now, i hope in the prior section, at a minimum it left you with an understanding that the roots of our problems are not going to be resolved by the whims of political legislation or cries for corporate responsibility. The flaw is structural. The flaw is structurally creating a psychological element that is inhibiting our mentality, basically. And if we're really serious about creating true change to resolve our problems, we need to broaden our view of possibility. Again, on the broadest scale, what is an economy?An economy is about increasing efficiency at all times, it's about doing what is most technically correct not what some company can afford in order to remain competitive in the market system or any other structural flaw that i've mentioned. The key word here is 'strategic' we need strategic allocation of resources and design as derived from proven technical parameters that assure maximum efficiency and hence sustainability. We need to monitor the Earth and make sure we don't overuse or cause problems such as imbalance or pollution It's just common sense and anything less is really negligence to our survival in the health of the planet the more you think about it and if you take this Earth conscious view, this need to calculate society and use what knowledge has taught us about our survival at this point a few defining features of this new system jump out: one, we have to move from a growth to a steady state economic structure. Constant growth is impossible on a finite planet. All traditional ideologies, capitalism, socialism even fascism and communism none of them touch the fact that we live in a finite planet, it didn't even occur to people as these systems developed not to mention the labor requirement that's tied into these systems which need constant consumption and hence growth to maintain itself can no longer exist as well. So, we have to figure out a way to stabilize our system, through strategy. Likewise, we need a collaborative system, not a competitive one. Optimized design and strategic scientific use of resources can only be done through a systems approach, as Jason pointed out earlier. If cost-efficiency is in play with competition you're always gonna get inferior things, you're always gonna have problems we live in a world that is very dysfunctional when it comes to proprietary invention we have is a rapid increase of technology and information and everything else and we have all these corporations fighting to maintain their propriety their propriety, therefore their market share and are not really sharing information see, how many times your computer's crashed, you know why they really crash? It's because they're built out of things that come from all over the place that are not really tested, they're not really engineered to work together and that's where the majority of say, computer destabilization comes from. Softwares that are created by one company that are not fully tested in compatibility with other softwares and you constantly have these issues people often give me the grievance, they say, 'we don't want computers to do things, i mean computers are so fallible, computer crashes the time'. The reason your computer crashes is because no one's working together. If you get all the high technicians out there that are dealing with computer technology and you get them to actually work to create a system of interaction that can create the best and test it out you will see incredible redundancy and efficiency and integrity emerge with the system that we don't have now The real market is the market of ideas and ideas must be shared, the 'group mind' must come in and everything that's happened in the market system fights the group mind it wants to steal parts from the group mind and exploit it on another part of the group mind, it's obnoxious. Three, we need a designed industrial system, a system that's literally taken into account, as Jason pointed out as well, resource allocation, dynamic equilibrium and strategic design. The dispersed, haphazard system we have now such as globalization, where we use slave labor here take component parts over to China, get them assembled there for even less cost and then we move them around and we assemble them in some other place and then eventually export them to the United States where they're sold This is completely insane. Unfortunately again, that's what this system demands, it's constantly seeking ways to save money not be truly economically efficient which means relating to the resources, reducing energy, creating more efficiency. It's really anathema, if you think about it if you want a carry human population, stop wars and exploitation as well, a system's approach to Earth management is required. And Four, which i'm gonna stop on this one, is automation, as i talked about before, and this falls in, kind of the distinction of strategic design not only do we design consumer goods to be as efficient and long-lasting and updatable as they can, the very design of the production methods themselves need to be equally as strategic to maximize accuracy and output. This is how in part we can create an access abundance on this planet. Does that mean it's an automated utopia, no one ever has to do anything? No, human obligation would be more in organization of these systems to oversee them for whatever lack of integrity might exist and really, you're only gonna have a small fraction of the population actually engaging this. And people often say well, wait a minute, who's gonna pay those people if you won't have a system based on money and turnover and market? Well, i don't know i'd be perfectly happy to oversee a system i knew that was going to feed and take care of me, stop war, cause social stability, create an abundance for the Earth's people, do you really need that incentive of reward in that superficial way to contribute to society? The granted answer is no, if you actually analyze all the other subcultures that have existed historically throughout this planet that were not so caught in to this false incentive notion. Now, i'm gonna basically stop here but as uh.. as i've denoted, this is basically a Resource Based Economic Model that Jason pointed out earlier this is just some of the attributes that comprise that issue and The Zeitgeist Movement basically exists as a group that's trying to get these ideas out there, to expose the fundamental flaws of this system, to get the world to learn to work together sharing a common value set which is a value set that's undeniable, it doesn't matter what your religion or creed or anything that relates to your political philosophy if it is not technically based, if you're not actually orienting technically, which is really the beauty of where science has led us at this point, then you're not really associating with anything at all. There is an underlying basic logic that all of humanity needs to share with respect to how they live on this planet and given that logic we can divise a ground-up approach to how the system would actually work that it's almost completely self-evident as knowledge moves forward. So, the term 'Zeitgeist' is defined as the general intellectual moral and cultural climate of an era. To change the world, you have to change values. The real revolution is the revolution of values, isn't it? It's a matter of evolution of thought. And until we get everyone on the plane to share a basic common value set, I hate to be dramatic, but i say we're all doomed, you know, because the advent of technology and everything that's happening right now, there's destabilization on the horizon, could easily lead to increased problems that far exceed our ability to problem solve, there is a point of no return, i think that can exist so that's why the movements global 1000 chapters across 70 countries and it's not a matter of 'engaging' or 'joining' or anything like that It's a matter of understanding and communicating to your fellow men what's right The institution itself, the Zeitgeist Movement is irrelevant just as any institution is, what is an institution? It's a foundational set of ideas and those ideas have to change and they have to adapt so i hope uh... this gives some insight to you as far as values and maybe jog some interest and i thank you for listening!

Video Details

Duration: 46 minutes and 53 seconds
Country: United States
Language: English
Producer: Jason Lord
Director: Jason Lord
Views: 268
Posted by: tzmgermany on Mar 7, 2013

A lecture from Part 3 of the Los Angeles CA "TownHall-Event" on Oct 26 2011 - Original-Upload on TZMOfficial

Caption and Translate

    Sign In/Register for Dotsub to translate this video.