00:00
4633
More
See all Show me
Peter Joseph: "Where are we going?" Nov. 15th '09
Video 2/2 [Parts 2 to 4]

Credits

Likes

See all likes
  • Scott B 2 years ago
    Well Done Peter!! Look forward to watching this now!!!!

    Ok..watched it..Simply fantastic Peter!!!!!!!!

    A thought of mine!!

    (FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE)

    We have 360,000 members worldwide. If each one paid $10 then yip that would be $3.6 Million Dollar advertising budget. If we hired the best marketing teams we would have as much exposure as 'The X Factor'. and as the members grow so would the advertising budget' to spread the news!!!

    Just a thought!!
  • Playbahnosh 2 years ago
    No offense, but I disagree.

    If we want to, metaphorically saying, yank the tablecloth out from under our society, that is make monetary-ism go away, we shouldn't use or at least totally limit the use of services tied to that system. Frankly, the advertisement and marketing industry is the biggest one of them all.

    There is only one way we can really raise awareness: with an honest, free and non-pressuring campaign. But we cannot be seen as honest and free while talking against the monetary system, when we are using the biggest, loudest and most untruthful and unfair form of monetary industry on the planet.

    No, we must use free and honest forms of informational channels, like the internet, blogs, forums, chat rooms, and in the real world in the form of free lectures and screenings of the Zeitgeist, Jaque Fresco movies and other documentaries related to our cause, like Home for example. Take a pavilion, or kiosk, put it up on events or on the street and distribute free DVDs and pamphlets, advertise lectures and screening to your friends, family and everyone you come across, use whatever free and hones form of "advertising" you can find. And don't be pushy about it. If someone doesn't want to hear what we have to say, don't chase them down the street, because that'll only lead to aggression towards the movement. We are not here to "sell" this idea, we are here to change the world as we know it, and that can only be done by making an example out of ourselves. Be kind, friendly and tell them as much information as you can, pont them towards more if they are willing to listen, but don't be a traveling salesman.

    The best place is where people congregate, I like to take universities for example. If you are on a university, organize screenings and hold lectures. There is a presentation on the zeitgeist website you can use as template, or use these videos. I'm organizing a lecture right now on my university, and I already found some people who are interested in the project.

    Just some ideas.
  • Kalen D 2 years ago
    I agree with this. It's as important as it is poetic to show the world the power of volunteerism. We need to lead by example.
  • Scott B 2 years ago
    Reply to 'Playbahnosh's' Comments above.

    I understand the your concerns regarding using the monetary system to adverstise the Movement, and i think it is excellent that you are holding a lecture/screenings at a university and from this have interest. This is ongoing as is blogs, and all the other ways of spreading the word at the moment.

    You mention that if someone does not want to hear what we have to say then dont chase them down the street. I fully agree with that, as it is a form of aggrevation, thats why im advocating that we simply put this message across in the most intelligent, streamlined and powerful way possible, without any compromise on honesty. I believe in this movement wholeheartedly as it moves towards a world with no or little human suffering. So if we can get the message out and let the public decide then whats wrong with that!

    If you put up a poster, If you post a DVD to someone, If you hold a lecture, all these things need money. Cost of poster and printer, cost of DVD's, cost of getting to lectures. We cannot be niave to the fact that this all costs money, its just that if i sit and watch television at peak time, i can watch an advert about McCain Chips, Banking, Laptops, etc. What not add in there a campain about the movement!

    The main objective is getting the message out there and letting the public make an informed decision, so there is no harm in using the worlds recources, i.e television, radio, mainstream communications if we can.

    And we Can!!!
  • I understand your concerns perfectly (having had them myself, or at least, concerns of a similar nature). The distortion of fine ideas such as those of the Movement had the following effect on previous ideologies in the past: 1º the core principles were progressively mixed with rhetoric and literary "appealling" versions...
    2º people liked them more and more and this led to violent overthrows time and time again (French Revolution, Bolshevik revolution etc. etc. etc. No revolution of this nature was really sucessful in my opinion, but this is another discussion altogether...).
    I am deeply concerned that the more we spread this message the more endangered the root facts shall become, and that as this message is communicated to (pardon the expression) "the masses", the information flow will become more and more simplisttic. Example:
    If one of us tells ten others about zeitgeist, the others will require to find the information themselves (by watching the movies and going to the website). Paradoxically, if ten already know and one does not, he shall be more inclined to believe it quickly (hence skipping some of the education required). But perhaps i am being paranoid...

    However, I do see Scott B's point of view. My parents are advertisers, and as much as I agree that it's the epitome of the capitalist corrupting machine(they jokingly call their practice "the fine art of separating people from their money"), It IS a medium of communication we should not shun altogether. If we were to raise money (this is necessary anyway...until we actually live in a resource based economy, we will need money to get the message across. It's sad but true) and spend it on "advertising", we (the client) would have FULL POWER over what the message is and how it shall be relayed. It ultimately does not matter that the company makes a campaign strictly for "selling" purposes, because we (the client) will have a chance to look at it and trash whatever is not to our taste before it goes on the air.
    I also agree that agravating conducts are not the answer, but I believe that if we separate ouselves from the monetary economy, NOT PLAYING BY THEIR RULES and rebuking their methods of communication this blatantly, Big Business, in it's paranoya, will label the movement as a threat to "the free world". I think we must show "CEO's" that we mean them (or their wealth) no harm... they are "symptoms" in the words of Peter Joseph, and an open rift in society (an "Us and Them" mentality) is not desireable. We must not reject advertising completely just because it is USUALLY used by profit-seekers. My parents have watched and are members of the movement, despite their profession (we are not bolshevists... we are not going to kill the powerful just because they "made it" in a sick society. That is unfair and inhumane.)

    In short, I believe advertising is not a priority (the movement is still small in global terms and ideas should be transmited only to those who would listen), but as the movement grows we should consider all alternatives to increasing global awareness. Why shouldn't we fight Fire with Fire, if it's effective?
    I remember this one time a couple of years ago: I was on a train into town (Lisbon), and as I watched, aloof, the buildings speeding by, and I noticed it... thezeitgeistmovement.com, in big cristal-clear letters, high atop a buildings wall. I was awestruck! It made me reconsider the power of change (or the power of demanding for it). Is a big billboard with the logo and a catchy slogan (that makes people curious about the meaning of the message) not a natural progression to this?
  • Branden Silva 2 years ago
    Scott,

    Playbohnosh hit it right on the head in a response to you about donations, advertising, etc. Here is how you manage to keep an institution from forming and still use money to help spread awareness.

    The group (the zeitgeist movement) does not require money and they do not accept donations, however you as an individual can spend your own money on your own materials and promote the idea and movement, but only if it aligns with what the movement direction and materials. If everyone did this, it would accelerate the movement, but it's not required. By doing so, you allow yourself to contribute with "fire with fire" as Luis puts it, but you can't claim that the organization accepted the money, nor can you charge money for the free material that is shared with others from the movement. Some people have tried to sell the material, which resulted in the zeitgeist movement pushing or shying away from such behavior.

    The main reason for using your own resources and not centralizing them into one group or institution is to prevent corruption, positions, dictatorship, leadership, etc. No one person leads this movement, even Peter himself tells you that he is not a leader, but a communicator (with excellent videos, material, and research to go along with it). If I wanted too, I could start my own zeitgeist movement #2 and promote the same type of material, with the same common goal to help spread awareness. The same affect would be positive and would help eliminate the overall corrupt system we live in today, which I think most of us want.

    I'm fully heartedly for the movement's direction, but I don't blindly accept ideas, change, etc. The zeitgeist movement is an accumulation of knowledge I've found myself gravitating towards for some time from other information I've absorbed in my environment over time. It only felt right that I got on board to support the broadness of the idea behind it. I might not agree 100% with everything Peter says, and I even have concerns in some aspects, but it's better for humanity and earth as a whole to collaborate rather than compete. Competing is aggressive, collaboration is compassion and compromise for the better good. Advertising is a form of competing over market share and eye balls. You have to be careful at what you portray a free movement as in your own image.

    If we are all brothers and sisters, then we all families and are connected in some way. This would apply whether you believe in god, the gospel, etc or if you believe in evolving from start dust, to organisms, to mammals, and finally to humans. So I hope you take my comments constructively and don't feel as if I've tried to conquer your views or impede your knowledge or growth. I'm simply learning as I go throughout life too.
  • Scott B 2 years ago
    Guys, Thank you for your comments regarding the topic. This is a healthy debate with lots of different views and opinions.
    I knew that my remarks would be some what 'controvertial' and i welcome the comments. It's good to share these opinions.
    I know that listening to Peter's Radio Address he has touched on the subject, I would however love to hear Peter and Jacques comments on this topic as i feel its important for them to do so.
    Yes Luis! Your Right regarding the Movement perhaps being in the early stages not ready for advertising and could be considered later down the line.

    My concern at the moment though is Branden, (Whose comments i respect) saying that for example i can spend money advertising Zeitgeist as an individual, or even start up another similar movement. But i may not support the core values of the movemant and therfore my message is distorted. My message might be similar but more aggresive in it's approach. (Not something we would advocate). The movement has been founded on the ideas of Peter and Jacque and i would like to think those ideas are somewhat protected and projected as we move forward, amended yes, but not distorted.


    Ask yourself what made you 'Join' the movement'!

    Did you watch Zeitgeist or Addendum, Did a friend explain it to you, or did you simply hear about it.
    What ever it was, something was triggered in your mind to explore it further. It is the skill set of Advertising that through research can find the trigger points that capture peoples attention. I do not see this as manipulation.
    I know that McDonald's through advertising can make an unhealthy burger seem irresitable and yes! that is a distortion of what the burger really is, but remember a Zeitgeist advertising campaign does not have an agenda of Profit, it's agenda is to educate people on the truth of the corrupt world we live in. Not to do this would be an injustice to our society.

    But all in all i agree with the points you've made and thankyou for your kind and well worded comments at the end.
    I certainly do take your comments constructively, and as you rightly said, 'were all learning as we go though life'.
  • Brandy 2 years ago
    I cannot even begin to express how disappointed I would be if The Movement took the direction of advertising. Although Scott B makes good points about the hypothetically honest intentions of Zeitgeist commercials versus the more common dishonest and profitable intentions, I completely agree with ‘Playbanosh’ on several points. In addition, there are multiple reasons why I believe advertising would not only fail to benefit the overall cause, but possibly hinder the Movement in the long run:

    1) Compromising the Integrity of The Movement
    We don’t need anyone, such as a company, “supporting The Zeitgeist Movement” that doesn’t really support The Zeitgeist Movement. This could be very harmful to our cause. We are currently spreading the idea through word-of-mouth and the freedom of the internet, and this means we believe in the idea whole heartedly and so we’re willing to share it. (There are seminars, etc, but most of us wouldn’t know about them in the first place without first w-o-m and the internet.) This kind of passion represents what we stand for in the first place – incentive & drive for the benefit of mankind without monetary gain – and is one of the most appealing aspects the Movement. In order to advertise, however, we’d have to get into hiring ad executives, a marketing team, paying a certain network, etc – however you want to go about it. Sure we’d approve the commercials and make sure they’re tasteful & truthful, and they may even do a great job of relaying the message at first, but an ad exec who doesn’t give a hoot about the environment, or our cause, would love to take on TZM account and get a piece of the aforementioned “$3.6 million” advertising budget. As soon as there is major money to be made, this compromises the purity of the Movement and questions the motives of those who suddenly want to become involved with it. Introducing the acquisition of funds ruins everything. In addition, we risk irrelevant accusational questions about which demographic the commercials are supposedly targeting, or why we chose a particular channel or network, etc.

    I do understand the comparison that advertising is quite innocently just another business tool or expense much like “DVD’s, posters, printers, and getting to lectures”, which we’re already spending money on. The difference is, when we purchase such means of travel or relatively minor supplies to support the Movement, our purchases are independent, and “spread out too thin” for any particular company to be affected on a large scale. In other words, the airlines and the office supply stores aren’t “lobbying” for TVP just because we buy plane tickets to seminars, and use a lot of poster-board. These are necessary, but consequentially irrelevant, purchases that have no significant impact on their business(es). Alternatively in the case of advertising, we’d be shelling out one huge wad of dough, and the last thing we need is a major partnership, contract, deal, or account with any kind of “corporation” that could externally benefit from our cause. I agree with Luis in that we should avoid an “us vs. them” attitude, and that we’re not attacking the “CEO’s,” but we don’t need to lie in bed with them either. Lets face it, Luis, TZM doesn’t aim to hurt anyone, but it certainly threatens the status-quo of the elite, and if that’s intimidating because we shy away from advertising, then so be it.

    2) The Possible Accusation of Hypocrisy
    I know that we still live in a monetary system and in order to make the The Venus Project possible for tomorrow, we have to abide by some of the existing rules of today. (Pay for supplies, travel, communication, etc.) However, I think its important to do so only when absolutely necessary. It is not necessary to spend money on advertising, and we would not only be supporting, but worse, appearing to *rely* on, one of the industries that the Project plans to do away with! Those opposing the Movement could argue that we aim to create a society where competition & advertising serves no purpose, but yet we utilize advertising in our campaign. Yes, we who fully understand the Project know better -- that advertising might be useful for spreading the word today, but wouldn’t be necessary in a resource-based economy tomorrow -- but they won’t give us that benefit of the doubt when convincing the ignorant masses that we’re hypocrites, and that advertising is “obviously a completely innocent, useful, and necessary tool, just like money!” It’s not worth the risk. Convenient perhaps, but we don’t need it.

    3) Negative Association
    “If we can get the message out and let the public decide then what’s wrong with that?” During peak television times, along with “Chips, Banking, Laptops, etc… Why not add in there a campaign about the movement?” Because we don’t want to be associated with those! Yes, I understand that if the Zeitgeist commercials were completely non-profitable, with totally honest intentions, then “advertising” alone would not make us hypocrites. Using technology itself (television, radio, podcasts, etc.), which we so strongly advocate, to share our message is not “wrong,” however we have to be smart about the methods we use to relay our message, and with whom we are associated as a result. For example, even if my only goal is to increase health awareness and promote Vitamin C, it wouldn’t be a good idea for me to hand out vitamins on the same corner as the most popular drug dealers, just because they get the most traffic. Maybe this is a silly analogy since commercials aren’t harmful illegal drugs (supposedly ;) but they do annoy the crap out of me, and we don’t want TZM annoying anyone, or being lumped in with other useless crap that we seek to get rid of.

    4) Quality vs. Quantity in Education & Awareness
    TZM applies to everyone, but it speaks most clearly and effectively to those who are ready to listen. To anyone else it’s just noise, just like loud commercials that interrupt your program. This goes hand in hand with what Luis said about the message becoming too “simplistic.” I agree. It’s important in preserving the ideas behind the Movement that people get all the facts, and view it from all aspects. Sure, the role of the commercials could be to politely spell out the websites(s), and leave the rest up to the viewer, but people are less likely to look further into it and educate themselves when they’re just waiting impatiently to get back to their show. I fear the imperative educational process behind The Movement would get lost if we were to shout it out to the masses on the tube in between IMB and Toyota. Personally, I heard about Zeitgeist from a friend through our conversation about living in LA and surviving what’s known as the Hollywood Hustle, and upon viewing the film, it spoke to a part of me that had been questioning these issues since I was a young teenager. TVP struck a chord in me that was missing something all along, and since then I have been becoming more and more educated. If there are sheep out there that must be forced to hear about TZM during peak television, and probably validate it through such pop culture, then I could be wrong, but we don’t need that audience just ignorantly “jumping on the bandwagon.” I don’t mean this with a “holier than thou” attitude, but quality takes time and effort. I feel The Zeitgeist Movement will find its way into the lasting hearts & minds of everyone through the current methods, and for the right reasons. Obviously we welcome any and all support, but if we’re to continue to build a solid foundation that is sure to stand strong through a very difficult transition, our success requires that it comes from an informed and genuinely interested standpoint, and not a “tuck tail & run” because things got rough. The upside? Granted, after seeing a Zeitgeist commercial, millions of people could go online, get (fully) educated, and join the Movement. The more likely downside? All of the above.

    It’s ironic – the one major thing we need to really get underway is mass awareness, and technically speaking, advertising could definitely accomplish that. Unfortunately, there are a lot of ignorant people out there, easily influenced by anyone dying to squash this, and I just think associating the Movement with advertising is walking on very thin ice. Where there’s a will, there’s a way, and if we maintain our qualities we will eventually achieve quantities by spreading the word!
  • Thomas Sutherland 1 year ago
    Yeah it's such a hard topic to argue about because you want this to be heard . . . but you can't be hypocritical at the same time.

    I feel people would understand if money were used for advertising, because it is now the society we live in. Most of the public is too dumb to notice advertisements and their effects anyways :), but it would also be way more powerful if this movement went forward with very minimal use of the monetary system at all.
  • Scott B 1 year ago
    Its ironic really.....Most Charities do a fantastic job, and the public praise them for their efforts, yet some charity directors live lavish lifestyles from the donations they recieve!!

    While it is ethical not to advertise, let me put it to you guys another way!!!....I want people to know about this movement, and to educate them! I know peter talks of this being a grass roots movement and i entirely agree with that, but there is a drought over these roots and there is no harm is watering them!!
    For you guys who say this would tarnish the reputation of the movement i say this.... THE MORE PEOPLE WHO JOIN THE MOVEMENT THE MORE IT WILL SPREAD! Here is an example of how to do so!!
    TARGET: To mail every house/Home in your country!
    HOW: Donate $** and pick what streets in your local area are leafleted..(Leaflets distributed by National Mail Company) i.e UK Royal Mail!!
    The website would then show what streets have been done and what are still to be done!!

    WATCH: as the streets fill, and as they fill, more

    The bank acoount can only be used for the purposes of the donation and its accounts are transparent!!

    Come on, who can tell me thats a bad idea!!!
  • Saint who? 1 year ago
    NO WAY DUDE! forget about the money, just take the learnings and be at peace! if you`ve understood the message; a great deal has been achieved... Wanna influence others? let them come. they will come as indoctrinated as everyone in this world is, but since you`ve understood, you will make them understand as patiently as you can... Just a thought, anyway revolution can begin anyway (the sooner, the better) just not through money, PLEASE! we humans are better than that, and we need to prove it!
  •  
  • Seventy4 2 years ago
    Thanks!!
    watching...
  •  
  • Awesome points Peter! I had hoped to attend the lecture from chicago. Its obvious, change is apart of nature and I believe, is never ending. Energy is awesomely abundant as is technology. But just as those who curtailed Nicola Tesla's technology (J.P.Morgan), they are at the ready to aquire free energy for "control", not incentive. Your avoiding that point. It's control. As for fearing 1984 idealism(yes its an idea), taking it too seriously may be absurd, but ignoring that its not active or an undying ideal solution to society is somthing you were aware of. The eugenics film which you made(one of my favorites). I'm trying to make the coorelation between the well documented film about population control you made, and the comment you made about taking 1984 too seriously. At what level of seriousness should we take it? For those who reply to this comment: pls be civil. Its disingenous when derrogatory dialougue is exchanged. Just 'school me pls'. I am a proponent to the movement. Kepp up the great work Peter. You are the voice of reason and rationale.
  • peter joseph 2 years ago
    hmm...i never made a film about eugenics.... but thanks anyway!
  • Dan Barrera 2 years ago
    I wonder which eugenics film you are talking about Christian. ¿Could you name it?
    Maybe you are confussed about the word you wanted to use.
  • Yeah, that'll be great! You know, that'll be great. You can watch it by searching google videos; its title is called "population Control-the eugenics connection. Peter says he did not make such film, and I beleive him. But can you agree it totally sounds like him? How bizarre. Joseph, maybe you can check it out. You have a very distinct voice...Thanks for considering to correct me Barrera, tell me what you think! Hiy me back.
  • Scott B 2 years ago
    Hi, I have listened to the google video you refer to, NO Offence but that voice sounds Nothing like Peter Joseph, does sound a bit like Jay Leno though lol
  •  
  • ClaudioF 2 years ago
    Thanks Peter!!! Watching it now
  •  
  • nanobattery 2 years ago
    Splendid, marvelous!

    Make it VIRAL, people. This stuff is suitable even for demanding audiences.

    Post it in relevant online newspaper article comments, forums, blogs, anywhere relevant. Get this out, fast. A lot of people right now are disillusioned with all the Christmas consumerism - let us use that sentiment for progressive ends.
  •  
  • Stefan Kengen 2 years ago
    Absolutely brilliant! Thanks, Peter. It was indeed worth the wait ;)
  •  
  • robert batchelor 2 years ago
    Thank you Peter, amazing as usual!
  •  
  • David Briceño 2 years ago
    Hi I am from Latin America, so spare any incorrect use of the language. Its good to see that there are people really concerned about the planet and mankind, that not only have a great understanding about what humanity is facing right now, but also propose a viable solution to many of our current problems, trying to construct a better future. I think the conference of Peter Joseph is excellent and I agree that most of the problems we have will banish by leaving behind the inefficient social systems that rules our lives right now and implementing a system that will look forward for the well being of all mankind and the planet, eliminating the power struggle and the competence of the equation of human life. I think that the change is a matter of will, and a revolution of consciousness is the first step to plant the seed for a better future. I hope that it doesn't takes reality to blow up on our faces to make people change for good, but its the way it always been before.
  •  
  • Xaphirezst 2 years ago
    Wonderful.
  •  
  • Alex 2 years ago
    I think Clayton Cramer said it best. "Abandon all hopes of utopia - there are people involved."

    I applaud your thought-provoking lecture, but I find in it a version of humanity judged far too lightly.
  •  
  • ryan tork 2 years ago
    55:34 in, "Communism... Woo"
    lol was he joking?
  •  
  • Patricia Booth 2 years ago
    Absolutely brilliant presentation, Peter. I watched both parts, the entire lecture; and as always, you presented the material in a most logical, relevant manner. You are an excellent speaker, communicator. I agree that awareness is the first step on a long road ahead. Let's just hope that mass consciousness catches up to the vision of the future we share.
  •  
  • Kalen D 2 years ago
    Incredible presentation! Well done.
  •  
  • mike111 2 years ago
    I've been a follower of this movement since its inception. I appreciate that the scientific method is at the core of this movement for obvious reasons; however modern science often finds it very hard to take into consideration aspects which are non-terrestrial. If we are dealing with the scientific method, we are fundamentally dealing with odds. Then going along with this system, the 'odds' or scientific likelihood, of who we are and where we come from point in the direction (for an open minded scholar) towards that which is not of this Earth. Of course, one cannot be conclusive as is the nature of the reality we live in, however there is much evidence pointing towards early visitation and manipulation. This would then mean that Darwinism is indeed wrong, perhaps an ideal held close by the establishment to perpetuate that it is indeed 'survival of the meanest baddest guy in the valley with the biggest gun', which lays down the psychological framework for a myriad of vile distortions which we take as right and natural. As much as we do need to focus on what is necessary here and now to help humanity, one cannot help but take a cursory glance over ancient history, and indeed modern history to see that the lie runs much deeper than one would assume. Maybe we can move forward with this movement without ever considering other, less orthodox possibilities of our origins - but would it not be educational, thought provoking and exciting at the very least, to consider them as real possibilities?
  • Kalen D 2 years ago
    First off, I absolutely agree with everything you said, I very much enjoyed reading your comment. I might personally add something to the discussion though: A society free of the obvious value distortions we currently possess, replaced with honest legitimate value identifications as presented here, would naturally migrate away from propensities to distort the truth. Human behavior will be less bound by our subjective perceptions and thus be more accepting of the truth. As I've said many times before, regardless of what world view we might individually possess, the scientific method will inevitably lead us to answer the great question. No philosophical "wars" need be waged, it's in the scientific method we trust.
  • Kalen D 2 years ago
    In summery :) If you personally want to see more open discussion regarding our early history, evolution, and origins within the scientific community, the movement itself is still the best step we could take in that direction; even if it seems the movement is discouraging ideas such as divine creation, or non-terrestrial manipulation.
  • mike111 2 years ago
    Absolutely. The scientific method is really the only mechanism we possess that is able to bring us towards even a brief flirtation with a tiny portion of truth- however tis better than blissful ignorance. The zeitgeist movement IS the best direction, however some aspects of human capability, major historical literature and archeological evidence are not taken into consideration which is a shame (in academic terms). This does not encumber the holistic goals of the movement itself by any means, perhaps such areas were left out purposely to bring as many 'far-gone' individuals on-board as possible as such subjects may have triggered too severe a paradigm shift for some. Perhaps once more people are privy to the ideas of absolute oneness, shared consciousness and the necessary abolition of all that is distorted and rotting within our 'society', we can then tackle that which is more trivial when we, as a collective, are ready to do so.
  • Kalen D 2 years ago
    Well said:) It's unfortunate Peter's earlier film about organized religious origin was taken so far out of context, which is not surprising to say the least. It has unfortunately alienated many potential supporters, who can now only see the movement as being hostile to their particular world view. Peter has only advocated pursuing what is scientifically provable, while "accurately" defining everything else as being superstitious in nature - and this is coming from someone who is open to the idea of non-terrestrial creation or manipulation. All one has to do is to look at the coming revolution in computational power coinciding with our continuing understanding and implementation of "virtual reality" or simply "reality," as I believe is more accurate, to realize the "potential" scientific likelihood of divine creation. It's easy to see the tools of creation are very much a reality and at the very least, discussion regarding this should not be considered blasphemy in the scientific community. But as I've said earlier, the scientific method will lead us to better understand our existence regardless of our subjective predictions, and make no mistake, they are predictions. We currently do not possess all the answers in the universe, and to try and assert definitive answers without any irrefutable methodology is best reserved for irrational fools.
  • mike111 2 years ago
    Sure, what I am talking about however is a little more dubious perhaps as it is not divine (in the traditional sense of the word) creation per se. I am quite privy to 'alien intervention theory', as when one applies the process of elimination, it is far more 'likely' that most references to 'divine beings' coming down from the 'heavens' in their 'chariots of fire', in todays frames of reference, would point in the direction of extraterrestrial visitors or 'ancient astronauts' rather than angels or gods. Ancient Sumerian cylinder scrolls for example talk of the 'Annunaki' which translates as 'those who from heaven to earth came' who taught the primitive Sumerians agriculture, trigonometry, astronomy etc... (the Sumerians were well aware of the layout of our solar system well before Copernicus and were even aware of the relative distance of Pluto from Earth, according to what the Annunaki taught them - their 'creation story',even when analyzed with severe scientific scrutiny, sounds suspiciously like a relatively primitive society trying to put into words what we today would call genetic manipulation... that we are alien hybrids...missing link?)
    Of course here lies the crux of the problem with the scientific method which i initially tried to point out - that which is (or has the propensity to be) extraterrestrial in nature, holds no footing within terrestrial means of evaluation.
  • Kalen D 2 years ago
    Just for clarification, when I speak of 'divine creation' I'm not specifically referring to 'our' creation, but that of the universe as a whole, which is a topic for another day:P But yes, I think you make an excellent point and I absolutely agree with you regarding our early history in terms of what was described to be gods and angels, or "the men of wisdom," as described by Mayan priests. Life is abundant in the universe, and it seems scientifically self defeating to not pursue the possibility that manipulation has occurred on one level or another throughout the millions of years of our evolution, especially when there seems to be actual evidence pointing to this exact notion.
  • Branden Silva 2 years ago
    Great conversations from you two. I highly enjoyed both points. I'm not really going to jump in and take sides or anything. I just wanted to say that I've really come to enjoy the Mayans and their abilities to track time from the galaxy or universe. The very notion of them talking about 'life' from outside of earth does open some minds. I do wonder what kind of information is lost by disregarding the cultures that these ancient civilizations had. But even these cultures weren't perfect, and Mayans waged war against other Mayans. If they had some divine plan from 'aliens or extraterrestrial life', then how come that plan didn't involve peace and collaboration rather than competition and destruction of one another? I do enjoy the Mayans idea of conscious evolution, but perhaps that is what they wanted, but they were to early in time to achieve it. They obviously had a better head start and understanding of time then we did. I find it interesting to ponder their different calendars and what they entailed. I've even gone as far as looking up my intention on their personal calendar and it seems deadly accurate. The movement has described spirituality in some sense and coming together as one. Maybe with time, this will manifest into what some of the ancients saw coming, with such things as 'telepathy' and conscious co-creation.

    I do sometimes wonder if our diverse behaviors come from simply the universe in general. The universe is both systematic and chaotic at the same time. I'm not saying human behaviors mimic this exactly, but it's interesting to wonder just how much we are affected by the universal constructs and affects of other neighboring galaxies. I like to listen to Alan Watts talk about how we are vibrations and his perceptions of it all, which coincides with what I'm talking about in this paragraph.

    Anyways, great comments. You are both much more inquisitive and informative than those youtube flamers.
  •  
  • herea costin 2 years ago
    This notion, this ideea has the probability of becoming the next best thing in human evolution, BUT... why do i have the feeling that something is left aside from this monologue of good intentions? The human beeing in it's purest form. The natural human in it's dependency of nature. Please construct the next speach in regard of the natural human, what makes us happy, what makes us fall in love or what makes us hate another? These are much more complex mechanisms than a matematical frigid, thou logic, notion of society. I belive that we live our lives in persuit of happyness, and this is a product of our branins evolving to this moment in a verry long period of time. Happyness is not tangible, nor is the same for everyone. I think this is the real fight... the fight to happyness and education of all human beeings to achieve it, be it by inventing a new society or achieve consciousness a much larger, universal scale.
  • Armin Husic 2 years ago
    exactly, people have to stop being materialistic.
    they see happiness in buying and owning "stuff" instead of living peacefuly with fellow human beings, where no one is starving, no one is killing, no one is stealing. THAT would be a major step towards a better future
  • Alex 2 years ago
    Armin, the solution never lies in "People have to stop doing this and people have to start doing that." It's impractical. Not everyone will share your ideologies nor will they bend over backwards for them.

    There is a reason why socialism is near perfect in theory and sub par in implementation. The natural urge for competition runs through our veins and must be accounted for.

    Total equality will only become possible when we all turn into vegetables.
  •  
  • Armin Husic 2 years ago
    I was thinking of a center for kundalini yoga and solar meditation, since it does improve ones awareness and feeling of oneness with nature. Too bad Fresco didnt think of it :)

    Also about that moral stuff. What kind of a human being is one that needs something to tell him "don't kill other people"?
    Wouldn't it be better if the human said "I don't want to kill" rather than him not doing it because it's forbidden?

    "Yesterday I was smart, so I wanted to change the world. Today I'm wise, so I'm changing myself." - some guy who's name I can't remember
  •  
  • Jos van der Veen 2 years ago
    The more I see and learn about the whole thing, the more it appeals to me. From "almost too good to be true" to a reality never seen before.

    Spread the word, I would say, and I already started with that myself!

    Good lecture Peter, Keep it up!
  •  
  • Scott B 2 years ago
    Well i've watched the presentation in full and I found it very inspirational. The content was excellent as was the simplified way it came across. Peter you are an excellent speaker and congratulations on this presentation.

    Just imagine if this was viewed by our main stream population.

    If only our 'Impartial Broadcaster' The BBC, was to show this, we would see this movement go into hyperdrive.
  •  
  • Acturus Pedersen 2 years ago
    Hey Peter you did have one slip up in your video, After describing how we should arrive at descions and not make them. you actually wrote Making descions as one of the tasks in the new goverment, now it would look better if you wrote Arriving rather than Making.
  •  
  • Bill Huston 2 years ago
    I enjoy your work immensely, Peter.

    However, beginning w/Zeitgeist 2 I noticed what I consider an over-reliance upon technological solutions to maintain our current population and rates of energy consumption.

    Thom Hartmann in Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight made a brilliant connection between cheap carbon-based energy and human population. As long as cheap energy is available, the food supplies increase, and the human population rises to meet the food supply.

    You mention a goal of global abundance and eliminating global hunger. While this is theoretically possible, unless we create a social system which demands ZPG, or most likely NPG, then as hunger is eliminated, population increases until hunger again becomes a problem. It's a never-ending problem.

    Also, everything I've read says that there is no single or combination of alternative energy sources (wind, solar, biofuels, etc) which can come online fast enough to maintain our current energy demands. Sure, it is ideal that we should be pursuing these vis. carbon exploration, but as Richard Heinberg says, it looks like we need to "power down". And since high-technological development is fueled by energy, we should look towards the lowest-energy-footprint, lowest-tech possible solution for any given problem.

    Now I will say that I am very encouraged by the work of Nassim Haramein, who shows quite clearly that there is near infinite-potential "dark energy" in every square centimeter of the universe, which powers the spinning of electrons and galaxies. And there are people working in the area of "free energy", "feminine physics", "perpetual motion", eg. the Keely Motor, etc. and I believe this should be explored with as much vigor as the development of existing "alternative" sources.

    Thanks for sharing your work and ideas with us!
  • Socrates 2 years ago
    Interesting comment Bill. I too have read the "last hours of ancient sunlight". Great read. I enjoyed learning about the fall of Ancient Greece and why only olive trees can grow now. (the natural resources/their current tech) could not support the war any longer.

    But I dont recall very much technological application to their solutions provided although the idea of smaller communities is very usefull.

    About your comment of pop. rising as food supplies rise. I cant imagine that being a problem during a time where people are totally aware of the carrying capacity of the earth. It would be common knowledge to know how many people each community can handle. It would be an embarrassment for people to be openly overpopulating their own communities.

    We have to take into consideration the full implications on a venus cultures perspective towards the world around them. Just as we wouldnt consciously have 10 children when we could only financially afford 2. We would consider the earth and our community in the same way as we do now our finances.

    I also feel a great vision is required to fully understand the implications of the venus culture. The way we would think and percieve eachother. The universe.

    I imagine "contact" would be made soon after if not during the transition.

    I would totally recommend the Book (Trilogy)
    K-PAX.

    Also made into an amazing film starring Kevin Spacey.

    I RECOMMEND TO EVERYONE TO READ JACQUE FRESCO'S BOOK " THE BEST THAT MONEY CANT BUY"

    PURE BRILLIANCE!!! My whole copy is covered in Highlights! haha

    ~ Love and Passion ~
  •  
  • Jason Gleeson plus 2 years ago
    "Raising the horizon of humanity and other great ideas",
    Very important work - thank you.
  •  
  • Dave 2 years ago
    I thought the lecture was fantastic, I loved it. I can’t think you’ve could of done it any better Peter! Covering the same aspects in different ways will really get through and inspire people. I think towards the end of the lecture, builds confidence and motivation in and outside the movement, which is extremely important. It got me thinking, maybe a video about spreading awareness would be a good idea. The most effective ways of spreading awareness using proven statistics from the movement, asking members how they discovered the movement and use the best methods. I’ll ask members what they think.
  • Socrates 2 years ago
    Very Good Point! It would be great to have prepared material for Mass Forwards.

    A way to spark the attention of a listener in afew words or a short paragraph.

    I would also recommend finding the fax numbers/email address to many different papers/websites influencial people. Making an organized list and suppling it ready made available to All.

    the more people are pushing for discussion on the subject to all media sources the more success we will obviously have. TZM should definitely have a database of emails/names and fax numbers to send TZM info to.

    The media needs to not only hear from us but the message needs to persist in their direction that this IS a worth while story. Its not a Fad. Its not Idealism!

    Its Practical! Scientific! Logical!

    Much Love and Passion to you All!

    Peter, Jacque and Roxanne; you 3 are absolutely amazing! True Inspirations!
  •  
  • Marko Kraguljac 2 years ago
    (not the best English speaker around)

    I am 100% with you, so dont get me wrong, but:

    When will really difficult questions get at least their speculative answers?
    Like:

    1. Inevitable role of modern industry and corporate structures together with their monopoly on intellectual property and resources. I think its naive to imagine implementation of these ideas without system's consent. Is it?

    2. Tough and controversial question of handling of 97% of population during potential transition. In current toxic system of things most people rarely avoid to be ignorant and act as pigs whenever possible.
    How to handle their boredom, immaturity, compusive impulses, crowd psychology during potential transition? And again, consent (willing or unwilling) from the system is unavoidable here, in my opinion.

    3. Another topic worth of whole point is reproduction. Is also controversial. It is no secret that most people, if sufficiently fed and not under a certain economic (or similar) pressure tend to "overbreed". For most people thats simply a question of nature. How to sync that with rational thought and intelligence? (Edit: Bill Huston also mentions this very important point in his ppost)

    Those are just three most important questions, in my opinion. If answered correctly and realistically, they would give a good ground for this to be closer to reality then fairy tale we all want to believe in.

    Thank you for all your efforts.
  •  
  • Damir 2 years ago
    Brilliant presentation, I njoyed every second of this movie, you answered to all my questions I had for now. I also suggest and I must say about the New Z-land project on New Zealand. Few people know about that and this site, so it would be good to send msg to all participants on the main site of the Zeitgeist movement to join that part of the project and help you guys there on every way we can. Just imagine if 360.000 people donate and every one of us 1-10 euro minimum...We are motivated and we want that city to construct very soon, ofcourse :D I hope to "see" you soon on next lection :)
  •  
  • Edje Noh 2 years ago
    Yup, this is it. Let's inform our fellow men and women.
  •  
  • David Gash 2 years ago
    Upon watching Zeitgeist for the first time, only days after its debut via Internet, I became stunned by its forthright dissection of the establishments responsible for many of our historical and contemporary problems as a species. Never before had I heard or seen anyone create such an impacting argument against the ever-dysfunctional, time-tested pillars of societal, status quo il-logic; i.e. religion, government and economics.

    Adhering to perception which parallels and piggybacks that presented in Mr. Joseph’s production was reason enough for many people to write me off as irrational and unpatriotic over the years; not always an easy position to endure in today’s climate. Personally, the release of Zeitgeist, along with the subsequent productions and presentations of its creator, have been a reassuring reminder that my view of the world – still somewhat esoteric when compared to the general consensus – is grounded in stable and reflective rationale. However, even more important are the cumulative effects of Peter’s productions on other people who may have contemplated some of our social issues, or for those who just sense that something is profoundly wrong with the world around them but nonetheless fail to identify the root causes. If only an eye-opener for some, Zeitgeist has made an impact.

    The collective consciousness of mankind is transforming more rapidly at present than perhaps ever, despite the dysfunctional and (self)destructive behaviors that we witness and/or experience on a daily basis. People ARE becoming interested in learning new ways that contribute to positive change in their lives, and the lives of others. In order to manifest change in a direction that embodies holistic health for ourselves and the planet on which we depend, we must first believe that it is achievable, and then continue to educate ourselves on the possibilities while we let our imaginations run wild. Our potential as a species is infinite, and following suite is our intellect as well as our capacity to cohabitate this planet harmoniously in cooperation and health once we embrace a functionally sustainable “system approach” to living, as the collective efforts of Fresco, Joseph and others detail.

    While many may perceive such an approach as Utopian, idealist thinking, the practicality of such an application trumps the outdated, idle standbys of time preceding. I thank Peter for clearly establishing this poignant fact in his presentation.

    Henry George ingeniously noted, “If the forces opposed to truth were weak, why would error so long prevail?” It doesn’t take a genius to appreciate George’s raw logic through powerful observation, nor to comprehend the power we all possess through making choices. One can choose to be a good, mindless citizen and be led like a sheep to the slaughterhouse if that facilitates a restful night’s sleep, or one can choose to look around and attempt to make sense of this world’s profound senselessness. By choosing the latter, we arrive at a disturbing conclusion which indicates that if our social systems aren’t soon transformed, our potentiality as a species will never be attained, nor the subsequent reality that would develop from a different approach to human life on Earth. Fortunately, the choice is still ours, for now.

    A roaring round of applause from this one-man gallery in the Midwest!
  •  
  • exponentecero 2 years ago
    very thanks
  • Hugo Angel 2 years ago
    Gracias por los subtítulos al Castellano ;)
  •  
  • vasek 2 years ago
    Peter, thank you very much for lecture.
    But how do you plan to to fight human nature ? ex. 7 sins, what do want to do with believe, hope ?
  • Dave 2 years ago
    When you ask a question like “how do you plan to fight against human nature?” you have to be more specific. In the Venus Project, emotional education will taught in schools to help people control there aggression, greed and competition etc. For more information look in the Zeitgeist Movement Activist Orientation Guide PDF, Chapter 7 (Nature vs. Nurture).
  • Kalen D 2 years ago
    There is no such thing as human nature, there is only human behavior.
  • vasek 2 years ago
    Dave: control aggression - I dont talk about public aggressions like shooting at schools, let's take everyday aggression, from people that are not so educated and have different opinion about life than you.

    Kalen Derek: Maybe you can find it surprising, but there exists people that would kill without any reason. The reasons that you cant explain. Maybe if you will create new computers that will track any possible behavior. Anyway, I think human nature is more complex and important task to resolve.
    Maybe that's why we need religions.

    So why do you think it is so easy yo resolve ?
  • Kalen D 2 years ago
    Yes Vasek, there will always be people that murder, rape, or steal. The question doesn't have anything to do with whether or not we can "completely" eliminate this behavior. It has everything to do with which system, on balance, better *prevents* this behavior to begin with - and if you look at the current prison statistics in the United States, which has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world, it should be obvious to anyone with an IQ over mud that our current system is unacceptable.
  •  
  • vasek 2 years ago
    Kalen Foster, dont forget - communism also had idea to reboot all. This can be introduced only with force confrontation against masses.
  • Kalen D 2 years ago
    I completely disagree with you. I don't know why you specifically mention communism as well. Almost every great step forward in social rights has come from one form of revolution, or war. This movement is doing everything in it's power to create change through education to specifically avoid anything remotely violent. Nothing about this movement is militant, and to force these ideas on anyone would be a complete contradiction of what the movement stands for.
  • vasek 2 years ago
    (back to Windows) - it is not so bad as you described, I think the main reason is that windows the most used OS.
    Second - widows maybe fill and saturated only by user.

    Now about communism - I now it very well, I was pioneer before the USSR corrupted. The social model was good, at 1970-s it is become society where you don't need to think about tomorrow, you had many choice who become. Yes, It has lack of responsibility, there was thief's at the government level, but it is more better than capitalism. The main reason was - lack of freedom and broken relations with west.
  •  
  • Anthony umina 2 years ago
    I think finding a way to get this information into the public eye is vital to the success of implementing it. Peter you need to be going on Oprah and Larry king and spreading awareness. I understand your focus has been on producing the information/ideas and presentation but now you should be working on getting global attention. People know the systems we have are fucked up, they know that it needs to change but they havn't ever had an alternative, you have provided the alternative. Public exposure and activist recruitment is the next phase.
  •  
  • Robdig 2 years ago
    Great video and info. It sounds so logical...
  •  
  • Hyper Nation 2 years ago
    vasek, you appear not to have watched the lecture. Human nature responds to stimuli. By creating mass awareness, you will encourage behavioral shifts. It won't happen overnight - but it will happen. It simply has to for us to survive.
  • Marko Kraguljac 2 years ago
    I have similar background as vasek, and I saw how "creating mass awareness" works.
    As long as sufficiently high percentage of people have to make sacrifices in order to reach "higher goal" there will only be failed attempts.
    So, in order for this new Order to work, mass emancipation MUST be strictly followed by successful reduction of scarcity. There is no other way. Its not my opinion but a proven fact in many different variants of communist/idealist states.
    As long as most people have to do boring, empty and humiliating jobs (or sustain economic pressures) there wont be any progress no meter how hard we want things to be better. Social fact is that 70% of people don't really care sincerely about ideals but about anyone/anything that gives them bread.

    Perfect thought quoted from teaminfinity.com:

    "ROBOTISM© Will Succeed for PRECISELY the Reasons Communism Failed...
    ...People Intelligently CHOSE to NOT Work as Human-Robots under Communism,
    real ROBOTS will have no such choice under ROBOTISM"

    And thats in my opinion complete and final truth concerning this meter. If you lived under communism you would much better see how it is truth.

    But now we get to the final paradox. How to implement such a positive and humanistic idea without system's consent? We have means today to do that, but by WE I mean people AND system.

    Peter has still not answered my question concerning system's place in all of this.

    PS Noun "robot" comes from Slavic word "rabota" meaning work, activity.. in same languages word "rab" means servant/worker/slave..
  • Branden Silva 2 years ago
    Mark,

    I usually refrain from using the words "new order" simply because that would imply that someone or something is doing the ordering. No one orders you around in this future society besides nature.

    You also seem to indicate this movement as communism, and although I see the similarities, I find it extremely different because it proposes eliminating government, money, and work by using robotics to do the work. This is drastically different than anything ever proposed and shifts beyond any kind of ism that people throw out there.

    When exactly do you mean when you say without the systems consent? The system isn't emotionally attached to working. Although I believe everything on earth is technically alive in one way or another depending on how far down you get in the structure, most things work in harmony with one another when not interrupted by a more advanced species like humans. You give, you take, your born, you die. We all live within the confines of nature and it's cycles. If such a cybernetic system were to become alive like I think you are explaining, it would probably come to the realization that it wouldn't exist without it's human creators.

    Either way, at this point in time I find it's far fetched to think that machines will evolve and somehow no longer consent to do what they have been programmed to do by human ingenuity. Mostly what we are talking about at the current time, is a distribution system of resource goods to eliminate scarcity. It's hard to imagine what future machines look beyond that point because we can't even think past our ego and self-interests now, yet alone constructing self-sustaining machines that eliminate poverty, scarcity, etc.
  • Kalen D 1 year ago
    I think it's important to note the distinction between what is traditionally understood to be a slave, and what this system proposes. The machines created to handle the majority of the workload will be no more a slave than your toaster. They are what we program them to be and to think we would program an automated cyber-janitor with emotional intelligence is... not likely.

    I think it's only inevitable that there will be conscious machines with emotional intelligence, and if you support Kurzweil's predictions, this will happen sooner than people think. The main point here is that they won't have anything to do with the machines handling the labor and most likely will identify themselves as being more like us than their can opener. They most likely will recognize the merit of the system and I would also say that anyone fearing the rise of artificial intelligence is just projecting what they've picked up along the way from Hollywood sensationalism - although I will admit that nobody really knows what will happen beyond the singularity.

    In the end if you look at human biology you realize that any difference between us and them is entirely cosmetic. Our DNA is no different than a digital bar-code, and our intelligence is based on a complex neural network that communicates using electrical signals - no different than binary code.
  •  
  • JOEY EDWARDS 2 years ago
    Brilliant lecture Peter ..

    I like the idea of spreading the message .. at home , work , school, social network websites untill it becomes a national conversation to finally become a global conversation .

    I also beileive in the midle of such a momentum , the release of zeitgeist 3 will spark a real constructive social debate worldwide .

    However i can surely bet the " establishment" will not remain silent and it will do everything it can to distort , and to break that momentum .

    But this time the good news is ,like you clearly demonstrate, in the end, facts and relevance will overcome ..

    WHEN PEOPLE WILL STOP , THINK AND REALISE WHAT IS TRULY RELEVANT THEY WILL NATURALY JOIN US

    Thanks Peter for sparking the debate !!!
  •  
  • Nick Carter 2 years ago
    Thanks Peter for sparking the debate !!!
    Would be nice to hear what questions people actually have after the presentations. The Q&A round is left out of the video though...
  • L_Ife like 2 years ago
    I noticed the Q&A was left out too, will it be uploaded?
  • L_Ife like 2 years ago
    tx:)
  •  
  • RDH 2 years ago
    Simply Brilliant!........Please let me know where I can contribute to the concept
  •  
  • kowach 2 years ago
    What can I do as an Individual in this rotten society? My country is small and corrupted and we are all enslaved in debt.
  • Armin Husic 2 years ago
    if you're from the balkan peninsula, you are screwed.

    nothing can be done here, the people won't listen...
  • Socrates 2 years ago
    Something can ALWAYS be done!

    You know the systems Strategy. DIVIDE AND CONQUER

    So.. Take a wild guess what you have to do. Start uniting your communities. And arming them with Knowledge.

    Bring up Real Questions. Talk about Root Problems.

    And introduce them to the Zeitgeist.
  •  
  • Marian Bucur 2 years ago
    Brilliant lecture, indeed.

    I hope the ideas you presented will become reality someday, hopefully sooner than later.

    Like kowach said, what can we do to help ? :)
  •  
  • Grüning 2 years ago
    This is the future! Good communication skills Peter.

    Although the 'Project Venus' does seem like an amazing idea, it's not new. I do not like the 'one designer' approach to the project. Designing a city should be grasped the same way we intend to grasp other projects. Make it a wiki. Let people / architects contribute with their ideas / improvements etc. within the frame.
    No reason not to make each city unique and stand out.
    Each city might benefit by some degree of specialization.
    A transparent / open source approach to deal with goals and problems within the frames of the movement, would be beneficial in the long run.
  • Damir 2 years ago
    They are looking for more designers, programmers and all who can help in any way they can... new city is in progress, you can be part of it too : thenzp.com/
  •  
  • Armin Husic 2 years ago
    man is the only living being on this planet aware of it's freedom.

    man is complete when he is free, and nothing will stop us from achieving freedom, one way or another.
  • Grüning 2 years ago
    Complete freedom is utopia. Democracy demands commitment and... your body will to some degree keep you embraced.
  •  
  • marc belanger 2 years ago
    I agree with your view point, however the powers that be will not give in without a fight!
  •  
  • JStMartin 2 years ago
    Great job PJ! I think you laid everything out very clearly. Just when I thought you were going to miss something, or an opposition topic came to mind, you addressed it. It's plain to see there are no valid scientifically-backed arguments against a RBE. This change is possible and we can make it happen!

    One improvement to the presentation I would like to suggest is to explain in more detail how a RBE is not some utopia. I think it would be good to explain the Emergent aspect of Natural Law in relation to this. Show people how all knowledge and systems, when uninhibited by the monetary system, with go through perpetual change. I think that will squash utopia arguments.

    All the best,
    J
  •  
  • aminhilal 2 years ago
    I'm very fascinated by this project, I think it's a major step for human being welfare..
    but to improve my understanding about the resource based economy, I have some questions:
    1. in the absence of money, what will make some organisation or companies, manufacture something (cars, trains, etc)?
    2. what will govern the access people have?
    3. if everyone has the same access to the resources, what would be the incentive to work?
    4. consequently, how would the social organisational structure will be ? pyramid or flat ?
    5. who would be responsible for managing this global government ?
    6. finally, how would this global government would deal with the current racism and prejudices between nations..

    Wish you all success.. and looking forward hearing from you

    thank you very much,

    aminhilal at gmail
  • vasek 2 years ago
    I think:
    1.There will be non-commercial organization controlled by resource-planned by supercomputer global software.
    3.Incentive to work will be - discover you talents and find occupation of you life, work that you will really love.
  • Socrates 2 years ago
    to aminhilal,

    All your answers are in the "orientation video"
  •  
  • C.Mangion 2 years ago
    This is how the world is supposed to be, and it will be !!! At the moment the world is so badly unbalanced. The middle class are being dissolved so you are either very rich or poor. What Peter talks about affects us all, small,big,young,old,poor,rich there is no distinction. As always the rich don't give a damn about hunger,thirst,deprivation, etc, cause they are comfortable. I have nothing against the rich, but I do have against one being greedy. Here in Malta we have a saying ,that goes.
    "THE FULL BELLY DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE EMPTY ONE".
    I leave this message to all the rich.
    " WHAT GOOD IS MONEY IF THERE IS NO FOOD IN EXISTENCE TO BUY AND NO CLEAN AIR TO BREATH?"

    Thank you Peter. WELL DONE!!
  •  
  • bas van Eijk 2 years ago
    keep up this good work
  •  
  • Paul G 2 years ago
    excellent speech Peter.
  •  
  • Peter Whitlock 2 years ago
    This is a great video. I find it a lot more readily accessible than either Zeitgeist or Addendum. While I love both of those films, this lecture - catcalls, interruptions and all - is my first choice for sharing with my family and approaching them about the Zeitgeist movement and the Venus Project.

    Peter, please add captions or subtitles to this soon. I am hard of hearing and have family members who are also. Therefore, we enjoy and understand videos and movies better with subtitles in English. Thank you for posting those with Zeitgeist and Addendum.

    Also, in my opinion, the concerns raised in various posts above about a future society needing to account for human nature/primal behavior and for the variety of ethnicities present today are concerns about details that can be dealt with as the movement goes along - as it moves, so to speak. I am not suggesting that we sweep these concerns aside, rather that we think of and suggest ideas for addressing them as fellow citizens of earth. Answers will arrive. As Peter J. points out, decisions can and should be arrived at rather than made. I don't have any ideas yet, and I haven't noticed many here that address ways to deal with these concerns. But I do have faith in both human ingenuity and collective reasoning.
  • Socrates 2 years ago
    I agree! this Lecture by far struck a cord (so to speak).

    answered all the questions and left me feeling totally confident that everything is going to work out! It has to.

    P.S. Peter, did you have a button on your laptop programmed to bring up the "communism responce page" for when you heard the inevitable communist comment. hahahaha.. that was hilarious!
  •  
  •  
  • Sean Schexnayder 2 years ago
    Peter Joseph (AKA ?) does an excellent job of stating what I had been thinking all throughout B-school. I do agree with him in many regards. I mostly agree with his understanding of the world’s problems, but am still skeptical of his conclusion.

    The primary goal of ANY business is to obtain monopolistic power, not necessarily become a monopoly, but to have the majority of control in its market. The current system is structured to motivate businesses to aspire to that monopolistic realization. The more consumers controlled by a business equates to stricter regulation of price and profit. However, a free market is supposed to work at the point where Net Rev = Net Cost, meaning that profit (after running the company, paying all salaries, and paying taxes) will equal zero.

    Since company’s can advance beyond this principal by obtaining monopolistic power; the government created regulations to control business monopolies such as Standard Oil (John D Rockefeller) to cultivate competition. I want to point something out here. Competition is not a “bad” idea maybe just inefficient compared to future possibilities. Competition stimulates progressive value in products ie technology improves exponentially every year because of competition. Competition eliminates groupthink and champions diversity in its beginning stages. In Rockefeller’s case, US Standard Oil became a monopoly in the early 1900’s, so in an effort to “encourage” diversity (competition), the government ordered him to break the company up into multiple companies. This act was a façade in my opinion, haha. He changed his monopoly into an Oligopoly creating Exxon, Mobil, and Chevron. Guess what, Exxon and Mobil got their band back together for an encore if you haven’t noticed.
    The regulations made to help the free market function were important, but have been traversed by witty businessmen who collude in secrecy. Collusion is supposed to be against the law, but it hasn’t stopped the wise; they have the best lawyers. I will say that the Free Market has been the best economic system until now; it completely dominates communism (Look up the Great Leap Forward), but what can we tell the little people that just cannot compete? Become a laborer or starve? Worse yet, become a laborer AND starve! No, something has to give and we sure shouldn’t trust the F’ing UN to tell us what that is. Socialism isn’t any better; the government takes about 50-70% of your hard earned laboring income and recirculates it (if it even does that) as it sees fit.

    As far as the viability of a resource-based economy is concerned, I have some reservations as to whether it would work, could even be integrated, or neither. I am willing to help in anyway that I can to brainstorm these ideas with the intellectually curious and thoughtful. It is a seriously broken system that allows a company to buy copyrights over a revolutionary product or idea, purely to stunt or banish its relevancy in ever day society (the amazing battery bought by oil companies spoken of in the presentation). I am left unconvinced by a centralized decision-making computer that makes decisions based on past solutions/ideals. That's not exactly progressive in my opinion, not to mention there a regional and cultural differences and something that works there may not work here and vice versa. This principal begs for decentralized decision-making capabilities.

    I concede that Peter seems to have the prosperity of human civilization at the root of his motivation. I would also like to point out that his ideas are excellent and let’s face it, it’s about time someone has said it. How many of us have sat back idly watching the further deterioration of our political and economic systems? So much of the world’s population has bought into the bi-spherical paradigm that we live in today ie democrat/republican, at&t/verizon, and black/white to name a few. This could be a “real” change we as an aggregate/holistic society have been yearning for, for so long. Still, the prudent thinker needs to be apprehensive of all solve all (absolutist) scenarios. Question everything you hear because without difference, indifference and then manipulation can materialize. That is a statement that may be perceived as militant, but in a world that cannot be trusted; it seems sane one to me.
  • Grüning 2 years ago
    I agree and hope everyone reads these comments!
    A resource-based economy would be very hard to implement without our current state of technology, and to get to this stage, the current system hasn't been all that bad. But it is time to evolve.
  • Kalen D 2 years ago
    Just one quick clarification on your comments. The central computer isn't a "decision making computer." Computer's still have yet to overcome the human mind in one aspect, and that is creation. We in a sense make a 'decision' by offering a better bridge, phone, car, train, etc. The computer is only a technical instrument, which analyzes only elements technical in nature. Everything speculative is still in our control. You can say that it 'makes decisions,' but I personally think that is inaccurate. Decisions are 'arrived at' as Peter likes to say by the technical evaluation of the proposed design. Almost everything residing in our current level of scientific understanding is technical in nature, it makes perfect sense to delegate this responsibility to computers.

    I also don't see this as being monopolistic as well. This system has great potential to empower the individual. Each person will have equal access to the tools and potential implementation required to push their product forward. I think it's a form of unprecedented access and competition which no longer depends on the requirement to survive, but is universally encouraged and rewarded in a way that not only benefits you, but the collective human race. It ideally makes self interest and altruism indistinguishable. Which I might personally add, is more than enough motivation to keep me hitting the books.
  • Marko Kraguljac 2 years ago
    Quasi competition is also most obvious in today's computer (technical) industry. Like: AMD/Intel, Ati/NVidia to name just a few..
    Some are open monopolies like: Microsoft, Google, Cisco..

    I am not saying they are bad, just that competition is not the essence of our world deep inside anymore.

    I really appreciate this comment posted by Sean Schexnayder
  • Branden Silva 2 years ago
    I'm with Kalen, but you make great points Sean. I personally love learning and wouldn't mind contributing my time and effort to collaborate with other brilliant minds in creating things that improve all life. The stress levels would drop to 0 knowing I don't have to survive in this modern animal kingdom and instead could focus on my studies and building a better future for everyone. Not everyone will agree on everything in such a society. I mean you might spend your entire life researching airplane technology thinking it can surpass maglev trains, but your work will still do good for society and be archived into the system, even if it's not deemed as efficient, useful for continental travel, or environmentally sound. Of course someone else could continue your work at that point if they wish, and maybe, it could be modified to make something better that was never though of before.

    In the mean time, you can enjoy your freedom to spend time as you please and doing something you love to do, with no one firing you because you ain't pulling your own weight. I think most people will come to find that collaboration will be exciting and fun in a modern world. Knowing you are working with a team of like minded individuals who share a common goal just makes me giddity thinking about it. One person can only achieve so much, but when you start combining the power of our future technology and lifelong scholars all over the world, you'll see a change that's so unimaginable that one cannot even fathom it today.
  • Kalen D 2 years ago
    I recently came across this report from the Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies regarding the rise of open-source economy/anarconomy via the web. cifs.dk/doc/medlemsrapporter/MR0309UK.pdf The whole report is incredibly pertinent, but this particular quote is very relevant to the discussion.

    "Imagine a lottery with a hundred thousand lottery tickets costing ten euros apiece, where all contestants win a grand prize of one million euros. It wouldn’t be hard to sell those lottery tickets, would it? In fact, that’s how Wikipedia and open source work. If one hundred thousand people each put ten hours’ work into developing a knowledge product, they all get the value
    of a million hours of work – about five hundred man-years. And, so do all other people in the world, if the result is made freely available. It isn’t necessarily
    blue-eyed altruism that drives people to contribute with unpaid labour; it can just as well be the expectation of getting your efforts paid back several thousand times. Everybody wants Wikipedia, but most also know that this requires that quite a lot of people keep contributing to it. The majority can get a free ride, but some must do the hard work. Enough take that responsibility
    on themselves to make Wikipedia – and many other examples of open content and open source – work. It is charity that they get something from themselves, in the shape of content, self-satisfaction and perhaps some status."
  • Socrates 2 years ago
    Thats very interesting. I can barely contain myself with the joy I feel for being alive right now!

    Lets just try to imagine what kind of tools for communication we will have in 10 years time. The Internet definitely has to be taken advantage of.

    We havent seen anything yet!

    People are so full of creative passion that there is nothing that could become an obstacle for our need to manifest our dreams.

    Incentive is dripping from our lips!
  • Kalen D 2 years ago
    What's even more exciting about this is open
    source products won't be limited to digital products. Eventually this will begin to enter the physical market via 3D-printers, which is more or less the decentralization of manufacturing and debureaucratization of society.

    "Many physical products are distributed digitally and produced decentralized by flexible machines. For example, you can get blueprints for a mobile phone
    on the web and have it printed on a 3D printer in a local store, or you can bring your own clothing design in digital form and get it weaved on a digital
    weave while you wait."

    This has huge implications for our society and gives credence to The Venus Project's proposals.
  •  
Showing 100 of 168 comments. Want to see the rest?
This conversation is missing your voice. Take five seconds to join Vimeo or log in.

Advertisement

Statistics

Date Plays Comments
Totals 74K 222 168
Feb 14th 1 0 0
Feb 13th 6 0 0
Feb 12th 5 0 0
Feb 11th 4 0 0
Feb 10th 4 0 0
Feb 9th 6 0 0
Feb 8th 7 0 0